Needless to say, this is a very stupid argument.

Eeeeeeevreybody! Now you're doing the Twizzle.
Eeeeeeevreybody! Now get ready to sizzle!
You twist a little
then you twist a lot
And then really get hot!
That's the Twizzle
twizzle
twizzle

The late-'90s Mariners had at least three (future) Hall of Famers on the squad--Griffey, Rodriguez and Johnson. And they didn't win squat.

The article is actually pretty good, the excerpt is one of his final points and does not do it justice.

I was just going to say... at least we know what to expect when Edgar Martinez becomes eligible.

Seriously:

reatness is about winning. The Hall of Fame should first honor great players on winning teams; Ron Santo was a very good player on a losing club that already claims three Hall of Famers. Adding Ron Santo would give his Cub teams more Hall of Famers than the Big Red Machine, more than the three-time (1972-1974) World Champion A’s, more than the 1990s Yankees will probably be able to command when the dust settles. Doesn’t this seem a bit odd to anyone?

It would also give them the same number as the 1926 Tigers and one fewer than the 1939 Red Sox who never won anything.

the Early 90's Cubs had Sandberg, Dawson, Sosa, and Maddux. The 1988 Cubs had Sandberg, Dawson, Palmiero, Gossage, Maddux, as well as Mark Grace and Jamie Moyer. Who of those should be thrown out/not elected?

Though stupid, in its stupidity it illustrates an important point about baseball: even great players are not, in absolute terms, worth that much in wins. Santo was worth about 8 wins above replacement during his peak, depending on how good you think his defense was, which is easily a Hall of Famer peak, but even that is not enough to lift an otherwise poor team to a pennant. Put another way, looking up all up and down the roster is critical to determining how good a team. Not that these points are particularly revelatory, but I think this sort of argument provides a particularly useful illustration.

Needless to say, this is a very stupid argument.

I think he acknowledges the Devil's Advocate position he is taking. Basically a nay vote against Santo is based on Wrigley, and the sudden stop to his career. The "didn't play for a winner" card is pretty bogus, as Santo can't control what his front office does when trying (unsuccessfully, for the most part) to fill in the lineup gaps on offense (they were in a very real sense caught in the Devil's Theory trap). Wrigley is a two-edged sword-Santo should get credit for taking extra advantage of his home park at the same time he deserves some demerits for his lackluster road play. Santo outhit George Brett at home with a .905 OPS vs. .888-but Brett rates ahead of Santo because he was at .825 on the road, vs. .747 for Santo. Santo slaughters Graig Nettles, a real good player, on both counts, which is one reason why Ron is a deserving candidate. One problem with using the base home/road splits is that they don't adjust for not having your home park to hit in on the road, which can make a big difference in a small league if you are comparing him to someone who plays in Chavez Ravine say.

As for his sudden stop at age 34, most of his years after that would be just filling in the stat totals (as was the case with Play-Two Ernie), which don't have a huge amount of value. Only about 5 guys really can be said to rate ahead of him (6 if you count Chipper, which I do). He'd be about average in the Hall , i.e. deserving.

The article is actually pretty good, t

No. It is not. From TFA:

Does a player with 252 home runs, a .257 average and a .406 slugging percentage get elected to the Hall of Fame? Even if we give Santo a more realistic home park advantage, would that be enough?

That point is emphasized. The numbers quoted are Santo's road stats doubled. It is misleading in several ways:

1) Counting only his road stats eliminates the best hitters park in the league, one in which every non-Cub's road stats are included.

2) It ignores era and position adjustments. What would other HOF 3b road stats look like normalized to the 60's NL - Wrigley Field?

3) and most importantly. So what? If a player, be he Babe Ruth or Bill Dickey, or Mel Ott, Or Jim Rice, or Ron Santo is somehow able to take advantage of his home park such that it produces more wins, that's a good thing, not a bad one. Did Ryan Dempster going 14-3 at home this year hurt the Cubs? OK, don't answer that one, but you get the point. Patk and era adjusted, Ron Santo was one of the greatest hitting 3B of all time, played a long career, and was a fine to excellent defender. So what if he packed 75% of his value into 50% of his games?

[Waves at TindsoM,had]

I have nothing to say about the ludicrous argument, but unless he's maintaining the most absurd and carefully kept-up front of all time, Ron Santo is genuinely about the nicest guy anywhere near Chicago. The only thing good about the ridiculous wait he's endured is that when he does get in he's going to be the happiest man in America.

The only thing good about the ridiculous wait he's endured is that when he does get in he's going to be the happiest man in America.

I imagine he'll click his heels with joy.

[Waves at TindsoM,had]

Yeah, well, I was typing my post as you were submitting yours. Suffice it to say we both agree. I may be a partisan, But I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would argue that a top 5 eligible player at his position doesn't deserve to be in the Hall, especially when may less deserving players are already in. I mean, what were the voters in 1980 thinking? At the time, the HOF 3B were:

Jimmy Collins
Pie Traynor
Frank Baker
Fred Lindstrom
Eddie Mathews

Brooks was not yet eligible. Schmidt and Brett were still in early days, and Boggs had yet to play a MLB game. Santo was deemed not only not worthy of joining that less than illustrious crew, but was rejected wholesale. There is no doubt that if you insert his name into the list above, he is the second best player there.

I have nothing to say about the ludicrous argument, but unless he's maintaining the most absurd and carefully kept-up front of all time, Ron Santo is genuinely about the nicest guy anywhere near Chicago. The only thing good about the ridiculous wait he's endured is that when he does get in he's going to be the happiest man in America.

Santo will be elected. Of that I have no doubt. If he is elected after his death however, I will take little joy in that (nearly) empty honor.

I looked through the list of HoF 3B, and it was surprising that Santo would be about 5th in there. He was clearly better than Traynor, Collins, and Lindstrom with the bat, but his fielding was good enough that none of them could possibly have gotten an edge over him in total value due to defense.

3B is way, way underrepresented in the HoF, and even if it weren't, it wouldn't at all be cheapened by the induction of Santo.

I don't know about great teams, but there will only be one 2005 White Sox in the Hall, and he was only around for a month and a half that year.

He was clearly better than Traynor, Collins, and Lindstrom with the bat,

And Kell. And though his rate stats aren't as good as Baker's, you have era adjustment and career length. Through 6660 PAs, Santo was probably at or above 135 OPS+.

Santo will be elected. Of that I have no doubt. If he is elected after his death however, I will take little joy in that (nearly) empty honor.

The ######## at the Hall of Fame will probably create a "Ron Santo Award" a year after he's not around to appreciate it.

Seriously, if they get this wrong (don't induct him before he passes), I'll feel like burning Cooperstown to the ground. It'll be up there with the Buck O'Neill snub.

Whatthehell was going on in 1964? Johnny Callison comes in 2nd in the MVP voting, as a RFer with an OPS+ of 125, while Santo finishes 8th, with an OPS+ of 164, while playing 161 games at 3b and winning a Gold Glove. WTF?

First, how many of those teams had 3 position players who all had 2200+ game careers with very good offensive numbers? Almost all of those games played for the Cubs. Plus Jenkins with 4500 IP, only about half for the Cubs. Lou Brock is #2 on the Cards' all-time games played list with 2289. Curt Flood and Ken Boyer come in below 1750. I'm not sure which era of Dodgers he wants to include but they've got Reese, Hodges, Willie Davis, Snider and Gilliam in the 1900-2200 range.

Second, and how many times must this be said ... after 1961 (Santo's and Williams' first full season), Ernie Banks was not an HoFer but rather (at best) a league-average 1B.

Third, the 4 of them really only played together 3 years anyway. Banks hung on for 70-71 but only for 300 AB total.

So, in 1961, the Cubs had the last great season of Banks and the first good (not great) seasons of Santo & Williams. From 62-66, the Cubs had essentially 2 HoFers. From 67-72 they had 3 although both Williams and Santo were showing signs of age.

Greatness is about winning. The Hall of Fame should first honor great players on winning teams; Ron Santo was a very good player on a losing club that already claims three Hall of Famers. Adding Ron Santo would give his Cub teams more Hall of Famers than the Big Red Machine, more than the three-time (1972-1974) World Champion A’s, more than the 1990s Yankees will probably be able to command when the dust settles. Doesn’t this seem a bit odd to anyone?


The line about the Big Red Machine is only true on a technicality - because Pete Rose isn't eligible. Add him to Morgan, Bench, and Perez, and you've got your four HOFers there, too. And that's not even including Seaver, who showed up at the end of the teams run.

And the 1996-2000 four time champion Yankees boasted at least four HOFers as well (though not all at the same time) - Jeter, Rivera, Clemens, and Boggs. Raines deserves to make it too (but probably won't), and both Williams and Posada have an outside chance. Pettitte had a slim shot before the revelations of this spring...

Jimmy Collins
Pie Traynor
Frank Baker
Fred Lindstrom
Eddie Mathews
...
There is no doubt that if you insert his name into the list above, he is the second best player there.

I'd say third best player there - I think you're selling Frank Baker short. In our Hall of Merit 3rd-base ranking election a few months ago, we had Mathews 2nd, Baker 5th, and Santo 7th, with 1, 3, 4, and 6 being players not listed there (Schmidt, Brett, Boggs, and Jud Wilson.) Collins was 11th among our 18 HoM 3B, Traynor is not among the 18 elected but still somewhere on the ballot backlog, and Linsdtrom never got a single vote.

Of course, Santo belongs in the Hall of fame - but I'm not sure he's the most deserving overlooked post-WWII infielder. That would be Bobby Grich.

I don't know about great teams, but there will only be one 2005 White Sox in the Hall, and he was only around for a month and a half that year.

The 2002 Angels also almost certainly will have zero... K-Rod is their best hope, and, gosh, the odds have to be pretty high against that.

There are still zero 1944 St Louis Browns in the Hall, with Vern Stephens by far their best candidate. '81 Dodgers have none, with no real candidates. The 1990 Reds may get shut out, depending on what the voters do with Barry Larkin.

Baker and Santo are really tough to compare -- different eras, different season lengths, expansion, etc.

Baker was basically a regular for just 10 seasons, played in just 1575 games, 1548 at 3B. He had a 135 OPS+ total and roughly a 140 OPS+ for his 10-year peak.

Santo played 13 full seasons plus 2 half-plus seasons so call it 14. He played 2243 games, 2130 at 3B. So right there he's got about 40%-50% more playing time than Baker whether you measure it by full seasons, total games or games at 3B. That's a huge gap for Baker to make up in peak value. But does he have a peak edge? Santo's career OPS+ is 125. Let's call his peak ages 23-33 which is the same as Baker (who didn't play in his age 29 season). For those years, Santo comes in at 135 OPS+, awfully close. Santo's OPS is more heavily weighted towards OBP (relative to league) than Baker's which helps make up some of that gap.

Then we get defense. I haven't the foggiest notion how good Baker's defense was but Santo's was good.

Baker may have a slight edge in those 10 years. But then you have to add 4 years of roughly league-average 3B. I'm not seeing any obvious reasons to rank Baker ahead of Santo. I suspect you have to make the case that Baker was nearly as good as Santo defensively to pick Baker. Well, there's the old "Santo was nothing outside Wrigley" argument and maybe a "Santo benefited from expansion" argument as well.

From 1983 through 1990, the Toronto Blue Jays won more games than any other team in the American League, I believe (and probably second only to the Mets). Unless Fred McGriff makes the Hall of Fame, they received nearly nothing from Hall of Fame players during that time (12 innings with an 8.25 ERA from Phil Neikro in 1987 -- that's it... though Dave Steib was pretty terrific in a career that earned him exactly 7 votes total before he dropped off the ballot).

Here's a fun one (only tangentially related). The 1992 Texas Rangers had fifteen former/current/future all stars, enough to fill out a lineup, most of a rotation, and with a couple of relief pitchers (depending on how loosely one plays with the positions)...

C: Ivan Rodriguez
1B: Rafael Palmeiro
2B: Julio Franco
SS: Dickie Thon
3B: Dean Palmer
OF: Jose Canseco, Juan Gonzalez, Ruben Sierra
DH: Brian Downing
P: Kevin Brown, Nolan Ryan, Roger Pavlik(!), Jeff Russell, Kenny Rogers, Floyd Bannister, .

...and they finished 77-85.

Is that a record for a sub-.500 team? Dunno, but it's the best I found so far.

Roberto Kelly made the all-star team twice?!!

The 1984 Brewers had 4 Hall of Famers and Ted Simmons (who probably should be in, imo) and they won 67 games and had the worst record in the AL. A lot of that had to do with Molitor being out most of the year and Simmons having a .569 OPS as the primary DH, but still, it shows you can't judge a team on the number of hall of famers they have. I'm sure there are other similar examples.

"Aging Orlando Cepeda" grabbed the MVP as a Card, and was at 150+ games played for 2 of 3 Cards Series teams. Odd choice of words; what he likely meant is that Cepeda is more Giant than Card.

Still waiting on the '84 Tigers...Trammell and Whitaker belong, of course, with Morris, Evans and maybe Parrish as serious candidates. And what about Rusty Kuntz?

Whatthehell was going on in 1964?

The Phils were in the hunt all year and Callison led them in RBI.

The larger question is how many Hall of Famers can be justified on an unsuccessful team.

The correct and easy answer is, "That's a completely irrelevant question."

"Aging Orlando Cepeda" grabbed the MVP as a Card...

Yeah, and the aging Cepeda was in his age-29 season when he did it...

And the 1996-2000 four time champion Yankees boasted at least four HOFers as well (though not all at the same time) - Jeter, Rivera, Clemens, and Boggs

You're forgetting Mussina, who was part of the 2000 team (and I have a link to prove it!).

http://tinyurl.com/4zlzw3

From 67-72 they had 3 although both Williams and Santo were showing signs of age.

Williams' best season was 1972, and he was also second in the MVP voting in 1970. Santo was showing signs of age, but Williams was at his peak.

Also, the Cubs of that era were a good team, finishing comfortably over .500 every year with a peak of 92 wins. They just never had that one year where they got over the hump. In 1972 they were about where the Phillies are now (well, where the Phillies were two weeks ago).

The 1984 Tigers is the team which is the most puzzling in terms of HoFers who aren't. This team at the time was almost unversally admired, Sparky works his magic again. But then they spend the next 2 seasons spinning their wheels, and then are upset by the MFTwins, and are now perceived as a disappointment. Just about every candidate they have, with the notable exception of Jack Morris, are all severely underrated (and I'm not counting Kirk Gibson).

Baker and Santo are really tough to compare -- different eras, different season lengths, expansion, etc.

In the lively ball era I have no doubt that Frank Baker would have hit 30-40 home runs a year. He didn't get his nickname on a whim. A dead ball era player is disadvantaged in this comparison because all those lost home runs severely cut back on his value vis a vis the guy who did hit 30-40 home runs a season. Yes OPS+ attempts to make an adjustment, but I don't think it is enough in cases like that because home runs are only part of the equation and it is only concerned with league/park averages not outliers.

I have nothing to say about the ludicrous argument, but unless he's maintaining the most absurd and carefully kept-up front of all time, Ron Santo is genuinely about the nicest guy anywhere near Chicago. The only thing good about the ridiculous wait he's endured is that when he does get in he's going to be the happiest man in America.

Tim: Anything to report regarding who you're going to write for, now that the Sun has closed its doors? (Unless I missed it.)

The 1984 Tigers is the team which is the most puzzling in terms of HoFers who aren't.

We Hall of Merit guys have recognized that team: Whitaker and Trammell, elected easily, and Darrell Evans who squeaked in on his first ballot as well.

As for Cepeda (not HoM, but a serious candidate): over the sweep of Cardinal history, he's no better than the 5th to 7th best first basemen. Heck, he's not even the best in the category of "came to the Cardinals from another team as a prime or post-prime player."

Well, to be fair, 1B-Cardinals has to be one of the deepest position/franchise combos in history. Along with CF-Yankees and LF-Red Sox, off the top of my head...

1992 Red Sox: 12 all-stars
1990 Braves: 12 all-stars

Ray, Tim had an article published by Slate or Salon linked here. Maybe he'll be an internet dude.

I'm covering the playoffs for the WSJ, which is really fun.

Tim, was I wrong about Slate/Salon? My memory is hazy....

What team had the most (future) hall of famers that never won a World Series (either with that team or earlier/later in his career)?

I guess that Mariners team with ARod, Martinez and Griffey would be up there (assuming ARod doesn't win one, which is obviously in doubt).

This year's Yankees would have ARod, Mussina and Giambi.

I'm covering the playoffs for the WSJ, which is really fun.

The 9-1 game yesterday...I hope you called it a Laffer.

In the lively ball era I have no doubt that Frank Baker would have hit 30-40 home runs a year...A dead ball era player is disadvantaged in this comparison..."

Is a deal ball era player severely handicapped to an offensive player from the 1960s? Aren't the 60s some of the lowest scoring environments in baseball, second only to that deadball era?

Still waiting on the '84 Tigers...Trammell and Whitaker belong, of course, with Morris, Evans and maybe Parrish as serious candidates. And what about Rusty Kuntz?

Not to mention Chris Pittaro - Sparky said so...

1992 Red Sox: 12 all-stars
1990 Braves: 12 all-stars

1988 Cubs: 17 All stars.

3 for sure future HOFers: Sandberg, Gossage, Maddux
1 likely future HOFer: Dawson
1 future HOF talent but will probably never get in: Palmeiro
2 future HOVG-would-not-embarass-the-HOF-if-elected: Grace, Jamie Moyer
1 better than the worst HOFer at hs position: Jim Sundberg

Record: 77-85

edit: the last place 1987 Cubs also had 17. Most of the same players, Lee Smith instead of Gossage. Gary Mathews instead of Vance Law.

edit again. The 1986 Cubs had 19

The 1988 Cubs also had: Someone with three top-five Cy Young finishes, three All-Star appearances and a Rookie of the Year (Rick Sutcliffe); a four-time All-Star and three-time Gold Glover (Manny Trillo); and a two-time All-Star (Leon Durham).

Ran out of time on my edit.

The 1986 Cubs could have easily fielded an all former or future All star lineup:

edit again. The 1986 Cubs had 19 They probably had a few games in which every player was a former, current, or future All Star.

C - Jody Davis
2B - Ryne Sandberg
SS - Shawon Dunston
3B - Ron Cey
LF - Gary Mathews
CF - Davey Lopes
RF - Jerry Mumphrey

SP - Dennis Eckersley or Jamie Moyer or Rick Sutcliffe or Scott Sanderson or Greg Maddux

RP - Lee Smith or Ron Davis or Dick Ruthven

PH - Rafael Palmeiro or Manny Trillo or Chris Speier

This year's Yankees would have ARod, Mussina and Giambi.

If you think Giambi's a hall of famer, my guess is you're in a minority of less than 5%. Don't think his numbers are enough to get 75% from the writers, even if the steroid issue wasn't there. He's waiting in line behind McGwire and Palmeiro for sure.

Giambi for Hall of Merit? Probably a good shot there.

If you think Giambi's a hall of famer, my guess is you're in a minority of less than 5%. Don't think his numbers are enough to get 75% from the writers, even if the steroid issue wasn't there. He's waiting in line behind McGwire and Palmeiro for sure.

If Giambi plays another two or three years at this level, it's going to be really close. In another two years the only thing separating him from Jeff Bagwell will be baserunning and defense; I don't claim those aren't significant, but I think Giambi would start to close the gap with another solid year or two beyond that.

He's a great, great hitter, and I think most of us assumed he was nearing the end a few years ago. That didn't happen, and as a result he's closer to the HOF than one might have thought.

I don't think he's behind either McGwire or Palmeiro in the line, though. Giambi apologized. Well, kind of. He also admitted steroid use to the BALCO grand jury. So he's been Forgiven, while the others have not been. As a result, I think he's in a separate box; hell, the sportswriters might even be more apt to elect him, to teach the others a Lesson. Remember that Honest Andy is now a hero and a role model.

The last place 1987 Cubs also had 17 (All-Stars).

Not to mention that year's MVP in Dawson and nearly the Cy Young winner (Sutclife finished second, just two points behind Steve Bedrosian).

And "last place" is a bit deceiving; they didn't lose 100 games or something, they were 76-85, which would've been good enough for third place in NL West.

He's a great, great hitter, and I think most of us assumed he was nearing the end a few years ago. That didn't happen, and as a result he's closer to the HOF than one might have thought.

I don't think he's behind either McGwire or Palmeiro in the line, though. Giambi apologized. Well, kind of. He also admitted steroid use to the BALCO grand jury. So he's been Forgiven, while the others have not been. As a result, I think he's in a separate box; hell, the sportswriters might even be more apt to elect him, to teach the others a Lesson. Remember that Honest Andy is now a hero and a role model.

It should be understand that you and I are trying to read the tea leaves of the voters' minds; with that said, I don't think Giambi has a prayer of getting in. I think he'd have to be behind Sheffield -- barring four or five more years at this past year's level -- and I don't think Sheffield has much chance of getting in. Not that Sheffield doesn't deserve to get in, mind you. I'm just guessing that he won't. My impression is that voters decide whether or not they think a player is a HOFer first, then look for justification afterwards, and I think Giambi and Sheffield (for two) will have a long way to go to overcome the initial decision that "they're not HOfers."

My impression is that voters decide whether or not they think a player is a HOFer first, then look for justification afterwards, and I think Giambi and Sheffield (for two) will have a long way to go to overcome the initial decision that "they're not HOfers."

I basically agree with you, Bob, with the addendum that I think it's even worse than an initial "decision" on the part of the voters. A "decision" implies some sort of rational thought, where instead what I think is going on is that voters tend to form an initial impression of whether a player is a Hall of Famer, and then stick to that, evidence be damned.

Thus, they don't bother struggling with the legitimate question -- no matter which side of it one comes down on -- of whether Giambi is a Hall of Famer. They didn't feel like they were watching a Hall of Famer when he was playing. That is sufficient justification to not vote for him.

The 1988 Cubs had Sandberg, Dawson, Palmiero, Gossage, Maddux, as well as Mark Grace and Jamie Moyer. Who of those should be thrown out/not elected?

Off-topic, but Dawson, Palmeiro, Grace, and Moyer.

C - Jody Davis
2B - Ryne Sandberg
SS - Shawon Dunston
3B - Ron Cey
LF - Gary Mathews
CF - Davey Lopes
RF - Jerry Mumphrey


We played without a 1B -- I knew there was a reason we sucked so bad in 86!

That sort of thing would never happen today. Thanks to sophisticated statistical analysis, there's no way you'd go more than 3-4 games before someone noticed that you had no 1B.

We played without a 1B -- I knew there was a reason we sucked so bad in 86!

That sort of thing would never happen today. Thanks to sophisticated statistical analysis, there's no way you'd go more than 3-4 games before someone noticed that you had no 1B.

"You have to have a catcher because if you don't you're likely to have a lot of passed balls."

- Casey Stengel, answering a reporter's question of why the Mets made catcher Hobie Landrith their first choice in the 1961 expansion draft.