HOF Vets--WTF??

by rockin redbird on Feb 27, 2007 3:51 PM EST Comment 11 comments

Well, the old boys at the HOF got it wrong again. No Curt Flood, no Ken Boyer--two of the most deserving Cardinals didn't even come close. But I have to say the most glaring omission this time has to be Ron Santo. I'm usually pleased as punch by anything that goes against the Cubs, but I have a hard time understanding this one. The guy's numbers are certainly there:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/santoro01.shtml

And considering he played his whole career under the shadow of debilitating and life-threatening diabetes (that has claimed both his legs), those numbers are even more astonishing. I guess the fact that his Cub teams never made postseason appearances carries more weight than I thought. He's gotta be one of the worst broadcasters ever (though I get a perverse thrill listening to him about have a stroke every time a Cub does something stupid), but I really thought he was a shoo-in. Then again, I've thought the same about Flood and Boyer for years too. Wow. What a crock.

0 recs | Comment 11 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Santo

I used to live near Chicago, and the theory up there was that he wasn't getting the needed votes due to being teammates with two other HOF'ers (Williams and Jenkins) on a team that never even played in a World Series. As in - how can a team have 3 hall of famers and never even play in the big game?

Not that I actually agree with the logic, but it might be true enough to keep him 5 votes short, which is what he missed by today.

Actually, that theory was always in my mind when thinking about Jim Edmonds and his chances at the Hall. I figure, Pujols is a shoe in, and Rolen (if he can ever stay healthy) has a great shot. Before the Birds won the series, I thought Edmonds was a long shot. Now....

by Robb on Feb 27, 2007 4:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

BP agrees with you

There's no doubt Santo belongs and I have a hard time understanding why he's not in. I don't agree w/ McGwire being excluded but I understand it. I don't remember Santo as a player so maybe there's something there but I haven't the foggiest what it is.

by chuckb on Feb 27, 2007 6:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Keith Olbermann had it right..

all of these mooks that didn't vote for Santo, Boyer, Flood et al, should all resign from the HOF. It's a disgrace.

by cardsrul on Feb 27, 2007 6:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

<sarcasm>Thanks a lot</sarcasm>

How the heck am I supposed to fall sleep tonight knowing that Olbermann and I agree on something?

by liam on Feb 27, 2007 10:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And for tonight....

Liam is the worst person in the world. Just kidding.

KO was on Dan Patrick for the Big Show, and he had a list of ten people he would vote in. When he said that I thought, "Damn Keith, I love you and all, but you are off your rocker." Then, he broke down the list and it all made sense. I wish I could remember all ten, but the only one's we haven't talked about yet are Gil Hodges, who was first on his ballot and Marvin Miller.

This ballot for me comes down to twin pairings: if you vote for Boyer then you have to vote for Santo. If you vote for Flood, then you should probably vote for Marvin Miller as well.

Marvin Miller arguably has done more to change the face of the game in the past thirty years than any other man on the ballot. Love it or hate it, the man is responsible for free agency and players commanding the salaries that they do. I'm not slighting last year's inductees at all, but they didn't have nearly the impact that Miller did.

Oh, and GD put Buck O'Neil in now.

by Brock20 on Feb 28, 2007 8:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The fact that

O'Neill wasn't even on the list is a crime in itself. The man did more to raise awareness of the Negro League players than anyone else, and has been shunned at every opportunity. The fact that he was always able to remain so positive and upbeat amazed me, because you know deep down inside, it had to be tearing him up.

by cardsrul on Feb 28, 2007 12:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't want to go into my long rant

but I'll just go ahead and borrow a piece from Hardball Times:

Before we get into the intangibles, let's have a look at the things that could be measured. We're talking about a superbly talented ballplayer. There was a time that Sports Illustrated referred to him as best defensive CF in major league baseball--at a time where Willie Mays was still dazzling fans around the National League with his defensive wizardry.

How was he with the bat?

Well compared to the Moneyball/silly-ball era where OBP and 50+ HR is king, it might be easy to dismiss this player's achievements. However in the context of his time, he was pretty good. Unfortunately, ignoring a brief unsuccessful comeback, his career was cut short and he was out the game at age 31.

As you've deduced from the Willie Mays' comment you can safely assume he was a contemporary of the storied outfielder. His game however wasn't the power game but it was more like another contemporary player ... Lou Brock.

Of course Brock stole a lot of bases, but during the great hitting drought--or when pitching was king, depending on your point of view--of 1963-68 (aggregate NL ERA those years: 3.39), both men were close in age. Brock was 24, our player under consideration was 25.

How did they compare?

AVG OBP SLG RCAA Player Mr. Intangibles .303/.347/.390 65 Lou Brock .279/.328/.418 35 NL .259/.319/.383 0

Brock was a prolific base stealer; however offsetting that our Mr. Intangibles finished top ten in batting every year from 1963-68, except for 1966 (Brock finished top ten in this span just once: 1964), and copped the Gold Glove in each of those six years, whereas Brock did not win any. Each man had a pair of 200-hit seasons in that stretch. While Brock was considered the finest base stealer of his time the other was considered the finest defensive centerfielder in baseball.

Walk your dog, not Pujols.

by Hardcore Legend on Feb 27, 2007 9:40 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Dammit,

it's just... wrong!

I'd put Boyer and Flood in the Hall, based on their careers... but, dammit, leaving Ron Santo out this year is just... WRONG!!!

"A man should live forever, or die trying." -- Mike Callahan

by The Ol Goaler on Feb 28, 2007 12:33 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Greater than the Game

Santo's election to the Hall eclipses more than just his numbers. If it were is numbers alone, yes he's on the fringe and you would be justified leaving him out. However what Santo has meant to so many people is more than just baseball and his stats. This man is a hero to so many people which span all over our nation. The man fought a terrible disease that so many Americans battle with. Its easy for people to give up, accept the disease and your fate, and live a short and unfullfilling live. However Santo fought for so long and successfully played a game that so many of us love with this disease. I can't imagine what that was like. He is greater than baseball, he's an inspiration. He is a person all of should strive to be and mimmick in life. This is why he should be in the Hall of Fame. He shows us what baseball should be. It may be only a game, but for so many of us its greater than life. Santo proved this and so much more. He fought for so many people with the same infliction. His induction would be a victory not only for himself, but for everyone with this disease.
Once in a great while comes a man who can become greater than baseball itself. I believe Ron Santo is one of those men.

by stl3bagger on Feb 28, 2007 11:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Stl....

Well said. I gleem from that you or someone you love is facing diabetes. If so, my thoughts are with you and your loved one. I understand what you are saying. My father was diagnosed with kidney disease about three years ago, around the same time that Eck game to the Cardinals. As most of you probably know, all of his siblings except for him have degenerative kidney disease. His speaking out about that, and knowing that people with the disease can live and have productive lives meant the world to my family, especially my mom, during what was a very dark time.
The BBWA uses so many arbitrary things in their decisions anyway, like if a guy was a bad interview(see, Jim Rice) that they should take into account something like this to break a tie.

by Brock20 on Mar 1, 2007 8:05 AM EST reply actions 0 recs