Baseball Hall of Fame Golden Era vote set for Dec. 5 ...

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Fifth behind Aaron, Mays, Killebrew and Frank Robinson is not a bad place to be. Santo may have been the greatest offensive third baseman the National League had ever seen before Mike Schmidt came along. That to go along with record setting defense...

I've been riding the Santo-For-The-Hall train for the past decade plus. So join me dammit!

Tom C

I'm with you if you'll join me on the Cocoa Laboy-For-The-Hall train. If we keep saying we should vote in guys who are just a hair below a guy whose already in the hall, we'll eventually get to Cocoa. Whoohoo!!!!

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I'm with you if you'll join me on the Cocoa Laboy-For-The-Hall train. If we keep saying we should vote in guys who are just a hair below a guy whose already in the hall, we'll eventually get to Cocoa. Whoohoo!!!!

Problem is Santo is probably a better overall player than 30-40% of those who are already in. It's statistically not a question of him being a hair below. In fact...I would venture that he is one of the ten best all around third basemen in history. Probably closer to 5 than 10.

Tom C

[sayhey24]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I'm with you if you'll join me on the Cocoa Laboy-For-The-Hall train. If we keep saying we should vote in guys who are just a hair below a guy whose already in the hall, we'll eventually get to Cocoa. Whoohoo!!!!

He's not saying Santo is a hair below "a guy who's already in the Hall", he's saying Santo is a hair below the greatest third baseman of all time. If we didn't give guys credit for being a hair below the greatest at their position, there would be only nine players in the Hall (actually some people might like that!)

Living through the 60s, I thought Santo was the best third baseman in his league, the NL counterpart to Brooks Robinson. I was surprised that a couple of people dismissed his diabetes when considering his case -- I would think overcoming a huge physical challenge is most certainly part of what helps define a Hall of Famer in any field.

I also believe Hodges should be a definite -- I think he belongs on his playing career alone, but I've never understood how when you throw in the fact that he was the manager of one of the most miraculous WS winning teams of all time, he still gets no love.

Greg

p.s. I always liked Coco Laboy -- I got his autograph in Cooperstown when the Expos played the White Sox in the HOF game in 1970 ( I think that was the year).

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by sayhey24

He's not saying Santo is a hair below "a guy who's already in the Hall", he's saying Santo is a hair below the greatest third baseman of all time. If we didn't give guys credit for being a hair below the greatest at their position, there would be only nine players in the Hall (actually some people might like that!)

Living through the 60s, I thought Santo was the best third baseman in his league, the NL counterpart to Brooks Robinson. I was surprised that a couple of people dismissed his diabetes when considering his case -- I would think overcoming a huge physical challenge is most certainly part of what helps define a Hall of Famer in any field.

I also believe Hodges should be a definite -- I think he belongs on his playing career alone, but I've never understood how when you throw in the fact that he was the manager of one of the most miraculous WS winning teams of all time, he still gets no love.

Greg

p.s. I always liked Coco Laboy -- I got his autograph in Cooperstown when the Expos played the White Sox in the HOF game in 1970 ( I think that was the year).

No, I know - I am the one saying it But it is the logic that is frequently used here, especially by Minnesota Twins fans. It's really amazing how many Twins are almost HOF caliber.

You might be right about Santo being the best 3rd baseman during the '60s. We didn't have a lot to chose from, though, and I wouldn't consider that enough of a criteria to vote him in.

But your logic about having only nine in the HOF is tough for me to follow. The only way that holds up is if the first nine at their positions are never surpassed. Besides, if memory serves me, I don't think the initial HOF class was nine different positions, but I might be wrong (too lazy to look it up). Also, if you think nine is a good total number for the HOF, that's certainly your right - I wouldn't be against giving it a numerical limit, and then replacing people every now and then. Kind of like dropping off the top twenty list in total home runs - no disgrace in that.

The HOF is always going to a source of conflict, as everyone has their own ideas about what the quality level should be, and also longevity requirements. I'm one of those who thinks Koufax is a no-brainer by anyone's standards, but I also think Maris should be in, simply because of what he meant to the game. By the same token, I couldn't argue against Curt Flood (but I would anyway). And I despise the 'longevity' argument that got Niekro and Sutton in.

Fun discussions, in any event.

Scott <=== average for so long that he should be considered great

[sayhey24]

Originally Posted by Runscott

No, I know - I am the one saying it But it is the logic that is frequently used here, especially by Minnesota Twins fans. It's really amazing how many Twins are almost HOF caliber.

You might be right about Santo being the best 3rd baseman during the '60s. We didn't have a lot to chose from, though, and I wouldn't consider that enough of a criteria to vote him in.

But your logic about having only nine in the HOF is tough for me to follow. The only way that holds up is if the first nine at their positions are never surpassed. Besides, if memory serves me, I don't think the initial HOF class was nine different positions, but I might be wrong (too lazy to look it up). Also, if you think nine is a good total number for the HOF, that's certainly your right - I wouldn't be against giving it a numerical limit, and then replacing people every now and then. Kind of like dropping off the top twenty list in total home runs - no disgrace in that.

The HOF is always going to a source of conflict, as everyone has their own ideas about what the quality level should be, and also longevity requirements. I'm one of those who thinks Koufax is a no-brainer by anyone's standards, but I also think Maris should be in, simply because of what he meant to the game. By the same token, I couldn't argue against Curt Flood (but I would anyway). And I despise the 'longevity' argument that got Niekro and Sutton in.

Fun discussions, in any event.

Scott <=== average for so long that he should be considered great

Scott -- you missed my point about only having nine players in the Hall (or maybe I just didn't make the point well). In no way do I think there should only be nine players (one from each position) in the Hall. I was using that statement to counter what you said to another poster about how we shouldn't put Santo in just because he's a hair below Mike Schmidt (arguably the greatest third baseman). If you follow that logic, only the best player at each position could be in the Hall.

Strongly agree with you Scott on Koufax and the disdain for the longevity factor (athough Sutton was actually a very good pitcher). I love Maris, and he should be considered the true single season HR champ, but he just doesn't rise to Hall of Fame standards.
Agreed that this is probably the most entertaining baseball topic to discuss, especially in the off season.

Greg

[Batter67up]

Go to Wikipedia and look at Gil Hodges stats. He has belonged in the Hall for a long time with his Dodger teammates. Not even considering his World Series title with the Mets in 69.

[Anthony S.]

Originally Posted by Batter67up

Go to Wikipedia and look at Gil Hodges stats. He has belonged in the Hall for a long time with his Dodger teammates. Not even considering his World Series title with the Mets in 69.

Hodges is 70th all-time in Homers (370). By the end of next year, he'll be more like 73rd or 74th.

He's 115th in RBI's (1274).

He's 306th in hits (1921).

.273 lifetime batting average.

So we know it's not his cumulative stats that would get him into the Hall of Fame.

He had a very strong run between 1949 and 1957 that included seven 100 rbi seasons and six 30 homerun seasons. 1958 and 1959 were decent. He did nothing after that (and nothing before 1949).

However, during that very strong run (or during his entire career for that matter) he never led the National League in a single statistical category other than games played (twice) and strikeouts (once).

His highest MVP finish was 7th (1957). He finished 8th another year (1950), and 10th in 1954. So he had three top 10 MVP voting years over his entire career in what was at the time an 8 team National League. That's pretty underwhelming for a guy trying to rely on the short, but great peak method of getting into the Hall of Fame.

By comparison, his HOF teammate Pee Wee Reese finished in the top 10 in MVP voting 8 times. HOF teammate Duke Snider never won it, but finished 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 8th, 9th and 10th. HOF teammate Jackie Robinson won the MVP twice. HOF teammate Roy Campanella won the MVP three times. Non-HOF teammate Don Newcombe won it once. Non-HOF teammate Carl Furillo finished higher in the MVP balloting (6th in 1949) than Hodges ever did.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by variousmembers

Go to Wikipedia and look at ____________ stats.

Really? Wikipedia? At least two different members have mentioned wikipedia.

With the many high quality baseball websites out there (my favorite is retrosheet) are we really getting our baseball stat info from wikipedia?

Sorry, I just had to ask.

Now, returning to the conversation, in regards to pitchers having so many more spots, there is a certain logic to a position which rotates 4 (or more) players, having more entries than positions which use the same player all the time.

Doug

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by sayhey24

Scott -- you missed my point about only having nine players in the Hall (or maybe I just didn't make the point well). In no way do I think there should only be nine players (one from each position) in the Hall. I was using that statement to counter what you said to another poster about how we shouldn't put Santo in just because he's a hair below Mike Schmidt (arguably the greatest third baseman). If you follow that logic, only the best player at each position could be in the Hall.

Strongly agree with you Scott on Koufax and the disdain for the longevity factor (athough Sutton was actually a very good pitcher). I love Maris, and he should be considered the true single season HR champ, but he just doesn't rise to Hall of Fame standards.
Agreed that this is probably the most entertaining baseball topic to discuss, especially in the off season.

Greg

Greg, I got your point, but in the first place, I don't even agree that Santo is just a hair below Schmidt. I just don't think measuring new guys against existing members always works - I've stated this as best I can (using the Laboy example). The problem is that as soon as you let one sub-HOF-caliber player in, guys who want their sub-HOF-caliber guy to be added will have an obvious argument, and that's what we see happening consistently. Yes, Santo fielded better than some of the guys who are in there, and yes, he batted better than some of them. Was he great? I don't think so, but that's just my opinion. I won't compare it to that of the baseball writers, as I disagree with them quite often.

Some of you have Santo ranked right in the middle of existing HOF 3rd basemen, and since that's how you feel, I completely understand how you would like him in the hall. Personally, I'd rather take a few out than add more less-than-great players.

[sayhey24]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Greg, I got your point, but in the first place, I don't even agree that Santo is just a hair below Schmidt. I just don't think measuring new guys against existing members always works - I've stated this as best I can (using the Laboy example). The problem is that as soon as you let one sub-HOF-caliber player in, guys who want their sub-HOF-caliber guy to be added will have an obvious argument, and that's what we see happening consistently. Yes, Santo fielded better than some of the guys who are in there, and yes, he batted better than some of them. Was he great? I don't think so, but that's just my opinion. I won't compare it to that of the baseball writers, as I disagree with them quite often.

Some of you have Santo ranked right in the middle of existing HOF 3rd basemen, and since that's how you feel, I completely understand how you would like him in the hall. Personally, I'd rather take a few out than add more less-than-great players.

Sorry Scott -- I thought you were referring to the Schmidt - Santo comparison. I totally agree that's it's a terrible idea to say that anyone comparable to the lowest caliber HOFers also belongs in.

I've always been a big Oliva fan -- he was such a great hitter, but had such terrible knees.

Greg

[packs]

Wasn't Allie Reynolds only one vote away from getting in last vote?