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

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang

Boy do the writers love pitchers or what! Maybe they should elect players by position to even things up.

Well, pitchers do make up 40% or more of every roster, so it stands to reason there would be a lot of them in the HOF

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Also, don't forget that Santo was just 34 when he retired, and he played his entire career with diabetis.

IMHO, neither of these items bears any relevance to whether Santo was a HOF'er. IMHO, he's a HOF'er but his early retirement and diabetes are a non-factor.

Other than Santo, I don't think any of the 8 players deserves to be in. I won't scream if Ken Boyer makes it but the rest definitely don't belong.

Tabe

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Well, pitchers do make up 40% or more of every roster, so it stands to reason there would be a lot of them in the HOF


IMHO, neither of these items bears any relevance to whether Santo was a HOF'er. IMHO, he's a HOF'er but his early retirement and diabetes are a non-factor.

Other than Santo, I don't think any of the 8 players deserves to be in. I won't scream if Ken Boyer makes it but the rest definitely don't belong.

Tabe

For those to whom "counting" stats are important, Santo's early retirement should be taken into consideration. He did not have a chance to pad his stats. Most likely would have reached 400 homers. The diabetis is more a feel good interesting side note.

During the 1960's only Aaron and Frank Robinson had more RBI I belive...there may have been one other but he was right up there.

Tom C

[Anthony S.]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

During the 1960's only Aaron and Frank Robinson had more RBI I belive...there may have been one other but he was right up there.

Tom C

Mays and Killebrew also had more RBI's during the 1960's than Santo.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Anthony S.

Mays and Killebrew also had more RBI's during the 1960's than Santo.

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

[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