"Allie" is a girl's name.

According to Wikipedia:
At the age of sixteen Reynolds achieved a degree of regional notoriety when he and fellow high school teammate Odassus McCutcheon began a local tradition of burning household furniture to ward off what local Creek Indians referred to as "shart demons". Reynolds would later incoporate the ritual into his pre-game mound preparations.

Is there any video footage of him burning furniture on the mound at Yankee Stadium?

His number 22, however, has not been retired, and has since been worn by players such as Roger Clemens, Robinson Canó, and Latroy Hawkins.

Is there any number Latroy Hawkins can wear without having people call attention to its previous owners?

Penalizing Boyer for this because Santo had a lucrative Torco Oil job and Boyer wanted to keep playing at a better than average rate is not fair to the comparison.

If Ron Santo wanted to keep playing he never woulda got diabetes.

Tony I care what his splits are, but you aren't even adjusting them for era.

And like I said, splits even out. Whatever he wasn't doing on the road, he must have been doing at home, and those games count too.

At a minimum add back 1/10 of Santo's Wrigley stats from 1962-68, etc. And at least adjust for era. Even taking the parks into account Boyer's career 'environment' was .269/.335/.412. Santo's was .268/.333/.399 - and that accounts for the fact that half his games were in Wrigley.

I agree OPS+ is an eyeball metric. But a 125 vs. 116 with 13% more PA is a pretty gigantic edge.

Was Boyer's OPS+ so OBP heavy that he should get a bump? His OBP was 14 points above park/league average. Santo's was 29 points above.

Boyer hit into 185 DPs, Santo 256, in 13% more PA. That's a plus for Boyer. Boyer was a 58% base stealer; Santo 41%, but Boyer ran more than 2x as often, as was well below break even level.

Those things don't knock off a 13% PA advantage, and a 15 point relative OBP advantage, and a 9 point career OPS+ advantage. No way in hell.

Boyer isn't anywhere near Santo, I'm sorry.

Yeah, let's see if it's different. So, eliminating both Wrigley and Sportsmans/Busch we get career road numbers of:
Santo .258/.340/.355
Boyer .279/.339/.392

Sheesh
so you throw out 60-65% of both player's career?
And yes, Santo played in a tougher context
1955-59 The NL averaged 4.37 runs/g
1968-74 the NL averaged 4.00 runs/g
EQA: Santo: .294 (WARP 3 112.8)
Boyer: .283, 99.3

Winshares: Santo 324
Boyer 279


all you have is Santo's road numbers...

Santo had 1100 more PAs overall so WTF are you talking about?

Santo last great season was 1973 at the age of 33. He had one more year hideous playing DH at 2B for the White Sox and then retired because he had a lucrative job with Torco Oil.
Boyer's last great season was 1964 at the age of 33. He continued to play for four more years (two whole years and two half years with OPS+ of 90, 100, 101, 109). When you look at OPS+ you need to take these into account, I believe. Otherwise, you penalize Boyer because he kept on helping win ball games long after Santo retired. You can feel free to say that argue that Santo's early career shouldn't be held against him either (OPS+ of 97, 121, 74) because he was too young to play in the big leagues (Boyer didn't get to the majors until age 24), but then you are left arguing that 290 homers and 1100 RBI (in a hitters park) belongs in the HOF.

This is my favorite line of reasoning from people who say that you can't use home road splits. Basically, the argument is my player's great hitting environment doesn't matter but you should still take into account the 10% of your player's stats that he played in my teams park because its such a great hitting park. Somehow, the 10% of the games that Boyer played in Wrigley are a strike against him but the 50% of the games that Santo played in Wrigley should be disregarded.

You are joking right? 10% of their careers is a season and a half of play. You MUST account for this. If you don't, you are going to come to conclusions like the ones you've come to.

You aren't adjusting for era. You aren't giving them any credit for what they did in half their games. And you are saying we aren't looking at everything? Seriously?

Santo .277/.362/.464 in a .268/.333/.399 environment, including accounting for Wrigley.

Boyer .287/.349/.462 in a .269/.335/.414 environment.

Or looking at each number above average:

.009/.029/.065 for Santo
.018/.014/.048 for Boyer

Santo, 13% more PA. I'm sorry, they aren't close.

Morgan quotes...


Asked whether the current Hall of Famers simply don't consider anybody else worthy, Joe Morgan, vice-chairman of the National Baseball Hall of Fame, said he doesn't think that's the case.

"There are new people on the ballot each year, new people added," Morgan said. "Sometimes, maybe, they might take away from votes cast somewhere else. I can't speak for everyone but, speaking personally, I feel some guys out there belong in the Hall of Fame. I think all of the players do.

"The problem is, we can't find 75 percent who agree that one guy is a Hall of Famer, or that guy is a Hall of Famer."

Santo last great season was 1973 at the age of 33. He had one more year hideous playing DH at 2B for the White Sox and then retired because he had a lucrative job with Torco Oil.

If you say so.

Santo and everyone else seem to believe his struggle with diabetes had more to do with it.

Santo last great season was 1973 at the age of 33. He had one more year hideous playing DH at 2B for the White Sox and then retired because he had a lucrative job with Torco Oil.
Boyer's last great season was 1964 at the age of 33. He continued to play for four more years (two whole years and two half years with OPS+ of 90, 100, 101, 109).

So now you are saying what Santo did from age 20-23 doesn't count either? When he played for 4 years as a regular with a 106 OPS+. Or are you saying that he can have those years weigh down his through age 33 numbers, but since Boyer wasn't even good enough to play in the majors at those ages they don't matter?

Santo and everyone else seem to believe his struggle with diabetes had more to do with it.

Yeah, but in the doubly alternate history where Ken Boyer had diabetes, he would have kept playing and degraded his career rate stats even more because he couldn't afford to retire.

It seems that the committee and I have very different views on things, because to me, Santo, Allen and Torre should all be in, while Gordon should not.

Oh well.

I'm just saying look at the whole body of work. You can't pick and choose what you want to count and what you don't. It all counts.*

*not wanting to get into this, but want the disclaimer, it all counts, except, years below replacement level should be counted as zero, and not negative. Those negative should go against the GM and manager, not the player. Just wanted to nip that one in the bud.

Hey Rusty . . . can you drop your Monte Irvin vote in?! Thanks :-)

It seems that the committee and I have very different views on things, because to me, Santo, Allen and Torre should all be in, while Gordon should not.

Given a choice, I'd rather see seemingly 'undeserving' players gain entrance if it meant a few more deserving players get in than both left out.

All I know is that Bruce Sutter damn sure had better have voted full ballot... since virtually everyone on the ballot is more deserving than he is.

I agree with you zonk. What's the point of having a Hall of Fame if you only put one guy a year in. Especially now that we have 30 teams.

Sheesh
so you throw out 60-65% of both player's career?

I did this because someone complained that I was comparing apples to oranges. So, I did. Now, you are arguing that I shouldn't be comparing apples to apples?

And yes, Santo played in a tougher context
1955-59 The NL averaged 4.37 runs/g
1968-74 the NL averaged 4.00 runs/g

I'm not a numbers guy? Does this make up for Boyer's 35 point edge is OPS? And aren't hits more important than walks in creating runs? Santo's value is determined mostly by walks; Boyer's by more batting average. Isn't it better to get a hit than a walk?

EQA: Santo: .294 (WARP 3 112.8)
Boyer: .283, 99.3

Winshares: Santo 324
Boyer 279

Yes, yes. I know all this. This was the gist of my point about how we statheads reinforce each others biases by spitting out more and more numbers that are generated from models that express those biases. In this case, we have a theory of how much a player's value should be determined by how much better than or worse than the average (or replacement or whatever) player. We determine this by making a ballpark estimate of how a player's home park should have affected his production. But many players are affected differently by their home park. This is clearly the case with Santo as his ridiculously large home/road splits show. So, showing me metrics that assume that Santo production was only boosted 9% by Wrigley Field (when we know that he was helped by at least three times that) only demonstrates your adherence to the prevailing player-analysis dogma.

This is exactly what Joe does above, when he disregards the actual numbers for a formula that might figure out what those numbers should be be. That's all well and good when we lack the numbers. But we have the numbers. We have 4000 (non-wrigley/sportsmans) road plate appearances from these players. Why do we need to figure out how much that 11% percent should have changed Boyer's numbers? We know how much.

Now if you want to argue that those the extra .33 runs per game difference of run context for half of their careers more than makes up for the 40 point OPS lead by Boyer, then I'll listen. But, let's say that it makes up the difference and puts Santo ahead, it's still clear that when we compare apples-to-apples (and factor in five years of a better environment) we are dealing with very similar players.

If you say so.

Santo and everyone else seem to believe his struggle with diabetes had more to do with it.

I don't say so. Santo said so. Time and again. Check the Tribune for the end of 1974. Check the Sporting News. Check For The Love of Ivy. I've written a chapter on Santo's 1974 season. You can think what you want. But you are wrong.

Santo last great season was 1973 at the age of 33. He had one more year hideous playing DH at 2B for the White Sox and then retired because he had a lucrative job with Torco Oil.


I distinctly remember an interview with Santo in which he said that one of the reasons he retired from the White Sox after one season was that he couldn't stand they way that manager Chuck Tanner accomodated Dick Allen's behavior.

Kind of interesting in this context.

Boyer isn't anywhere near Santo, I'm sorry.

Agreed. Anthony is off the reservation here.

Santo (1) hit better, (2) played in more games, and (3) had a higher peak.

As to (2), Boyer did play in six 154-game seasons; Santo just one (when he first came up). But even if we were to give Boyer an additional 48 games (8 x 6) for the 154-game seasons, he would still trail Santo in games played, 2243 to 2082.

The _only_ way for Anthony to get Boyer anywhere close to Santo would be if the two players were so far apart on defense that Boyer closes the gap (which isn't the case). Not home/road splits. Not Torco Oil. How silly.

I don't say so. Santo said so. Time and again. Check the Tribune for the end of 1974. Check the Sporting News. Check For The Love of Ivy. I've written a chapter on Santo's 1974 season. You can think what you want. But you are wrong.

Was Santo's diabetes public knowledge at this time?

The _only_ way for Anthony to get Boyer anywhere close to Santo would be if the two players were so far apart on defense that Boyer closes the gap. Not home/road splits. Not Torco Oil. How silly.

Why are home-road splits silly again?

Eric -

Santo's diabetes was known by 1974. He first publicly mentioned it when Durocher was his manager with the Cubs in the early 1970s, I believe on a day in his honor at Wrigley.

I feel we're a mere handful of posts from the Chewbacca Defense here...

Why are home-road splits silly again?

It's silly to hang an argument on them, as Anthony is trying to do. Because we know how to account for them.

Thanks, Dag.

It's silly to hang an argument on them, as Anthony is trying to do. Because we know how to account for them.

He seems to be accounting for them differently than you are.

So now you are saying what Santo did from age 20-23 doesn't count either? When he played for 4 years as a regular with a 106 OPS+. Or are you saying that he can have those years weigh down his through age 33 numbers, but since Boyer wasn't even good enough to play in the majors at those ages they don't matter?

You mean, I didn't point this out in the sentence immediately after the one that you quoted?

You can feel free to say that argue that Santo's early career shouldn't be held against him either (OPS+ of 97, 121, 74) because he was too young to play in the big leagues (Boyer didn't get to the majors until age 24), but then you are left arguing that 290 homers and 1100 RBI (in a hitters park) belongs in the HOF.

Don't I address this? Like I said, you can think that Santo is better than Boyer, he might be, but they are far from being worlds apart. Someday someone will have a similar argument about guys like Todd Helton and Mark Teixeira too. And they'll bore everyone else too.

I distinctly remember an interview with Santo in which he said that one of the reasons he retired from the White Sox after one season was that he couldn't stand they way that manager Chuck Tanner accomodated Dick Allen's behavior.

He says this explicity in For the Love of Ivy. Well, after a gratuitous self-pat on the back about how he told John Allyn that he didn't want to take his $100,000 for 1975 because he wasn't really in to playing anymore.

He says this explicity in For the Love of Ivy. Well, after a gratuitous self-pat on the back about how he told John Allyn that he didn't want to take his $100,000 for 1975 because he wasn't really in to playing anymore.

Wasn't Santo pretty much at the end of the road at that point, anyway? I don't have his stats in front of me, but I don't think that Santo really impressed in his year on the South Side.

I always get the Boyer's mixed up in my mind. That is all.

Really? I started watching the Yankees in the early 60's, and I didn't have that problem. Ken could hit. Clete, some years, managed to be league average, and utterly horrible in others. But he was one of the best fielding third sackers ever.

No way I could ever confuse those two.

Wasn't Santo pretty much at the end of the road at that point, anyway? I don't have his stats in front of me, but I don't think that Santo really impressed in his year on the South Side.

He was dreadful (OPS+ 65, I think). But this isn't really fair to Santo. He was great in a comeback year in 1973. He got himself into trouble after 1973 though. As John Holland was breaking up the Cubs (sending away Jenkins and Beckert (and bringing in another 3B, Bill Madlock), Santo rejected a trade that would have sent him to the Angels (the first 10/5 instance or the Santo Clause as they called it at the time). Then he demanded a trade to the White Sox so he didn't have to move his family or leave his off-season job with Torco. The Sox sent Steve Swisher and Steve Stone to get 34-year old Santo, figuring they could play him at 3B to spell Melton, 1B to spell Allen, DH and even 2B to spell Orta. But, Santo was very unhappy mostly, it seems, because he wasn't with the Cubs, the only franchise he'd known, and decided to retire after 1974. He later blamed Tanner for going back on his word but on the day that he signed Santo said he was pleased to play first, third or DH, anywhere that could help the team.

I think it's terrible Santo didn't get in. But Joe Gordon is a worthy HOF. If you give him credit for missing war years, his case is similar to Bobby Grich - ordinary batting average, but excellent power & walks for the position, and very good defense.

What are the odds some future veterans committee decides Bobby deserves to be in?

So, showing me metrics that assume that Santo production was only boosted 9% by Wrigley Field (when we know that he was helped by at least three times that) only demonstrates your adherence to the prevailing player-analysis dogma.

You are making the assumption that Santo's home production was entirely the product of "being helped by" Wrigley Field, and was "helped by" Wrigley field THREE TIMES as much as the population of MLB players who played there during the Santo years. So your argument is that Santo didn't have any skill that helped him take particularly advantage of the park. Basically that he was lucky.

Even IF he was "helped by" Wrigley at a rate THREE TIMES the rate of the rest of the MLB population, that is VALUE THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE CHICAGO CUBS WINNING BALLGAMES. There were many other players who got to play there, and they didn't put up the level of stats that Santo did. He got those hits, drew the walks, hit the HRs, hit the doubles.

Lets pretend that some quirk of Santo's swing and the dimensions of Wrigley were a coming together of the forces of the universe in a strange way that benefited Santo unlike any other player to ever set foot in Wrigley. IT STILL RESULTED IN VALUE THAT WON BALL GAMES.

This point is irrefutable. The value was there. You can claim its lucky happenstance. But IT HAPPENED.

So now you are saying what Santo did from age 20-23 doesn't count either?

Ok Santo ages 24-33: 136 OPS+, 6576 PAs, 1047 runs created, (4213 outs)
Boyer ages 243-33: 121 OPS+, 6442 PAs, 993 runs created (4283 outs)

This point is irrefutable. The value was there.

What is refutable is how much credit one should give a player for it. Was the value inherent in someone or in the circumstance he found himself in? More to the point, do you really give someone baseball's hihest honor is it's more the latter than former? A lot of what sabermetrics does is try to pear off one from the other. Heck, it's irrefutable that Jack Morris won 254 games.

Jack Morris's team won 254 games.

What is refutable is how much credit one should give a player for it.

Well who else are you going to credit? Does "Wrigley Field" get credit for some Cubs wins? Moreso than any other ballpark?

Heck, it's irrefutable that Jack Morris won 254 games.

But we know who to credit for that - Trammell, Whitaker, Kirk Gibson, Chet Lemon, later Puckett, Hrbek, etc. You know, the guys who gave Morris such great run support that he was able to win 254 games with an ERA approaching 4.

Was the value inherent in someone or in the circumstance he found himself in?

Other ballplayers were put into the same circumstances but did not put up similar numbers.

Why do we need to figure out how much that 11% percent should have changed Boyer's numbers? We know how much.

no we DON'T
some players may play better (have a greater HF) advantage than other players for a variety of reasons- Santo may have played better at Home than on the Road period- some players don't have much H/R split at all.

Is there any evidence that Santo took UNIQUE advantage of Wrigley*? Or was Santo going to be X% better at home no matter what his home park was? (By that I mean was Santo always going to play better at home than his teammates no matter what the home park was)

*I haven't looked it up- but IF he showed a pronounced non-Wrigley day/night split- then maybe you were on to something.

A similar argument about Morris is if he had poor WHIP, K/9 and other base numbers but managed a 125 ERA+ and won 300 games. Would you argue that the ERA was all luck, and that he shouldn't get credit for it?

Santo may have excelled at home where he could better control his diabetes.

Santo's night stats are worse than his road stats, so he did perform better on the road during the day than at night.

Would you argue that the ERA was all luck, and that he shouldn't get credit for it?

YES! Finally an argument to keep Glavine OUT!

just kidding.

so he did perform better on the road during the day than at night.

By how much?
Most batters do- playing all home games at day was a big part of Wrigley's park factor

If Santo's road day/night splits were bigger than normal that would be evidence that a lot of his value was specifically Wrigley based rather than simply home based.

Santo may have excelled at home where he could better control his diabetes.

This is an absurdly small sample, of course, but in 1974, Santo put up an OPS of .689 in Comiskey and .513 on the road. BB-Ref shows those as sOPS+ of 95 at home v. 52 on the road. I actually think BLB's hypothesis in #141 (what I quote) makes a lot of sense.

Really? I started watching the Yankees in the early 60's, and I didn't have that problem. Ken could hit. Clete, some years, managed to be league average, and utterly horrible in others. But he was one of the best fielding third sackers ever.

No way I could ever confuse those two.

That was before my time. I started following the game in '75. Then again, the Forsches confused me. We were an AL household.

Anthony,

As BLB said, but with fewer CAPS, if every player was benefitting from Wrigley in the same way than the park adjustment takes care of that advantage. If Santo benefitted from Wrigley more than other players, that helped the Cubs win games, and he deserves credit for it.

Do you also think Wade Boggs shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame? He hit .369/.464/.527 at Fenway, and .354/.443/.491 at home for his career vs. .302/.387/.395 on the road. There have always been players

In general, you seem to have an odd idea that the shape of a player's performance matters more than the quality of his play. You argue that Boyer's ability to play beyond 33 is an important indicator of his longevity, when he played fewer games than Santo. Imagine we found out that Santo had lied about his age to seem a better prospect, and was actually four years older. Then he starts out at 24, mixes a couple subpar seasons into the start of his career before coming into his prime at 27. From there, he and Boyer have basically the same shape career, except that Santo is better at his peak and holds onto his value longer. If you don't attach undue weight to career length as measured by a player's calendar age when he retired, Santo just looks much better.

BTW, for those who know more about the history of the season, is there actually a good case for Boyer's 1964 MVP? Just glancing at the stats, it certainly looks like Willie Mays or Frank Robinson deserved it more, even if Boyer's defense was excellent.

In general, you seem to have an odd idea that the shape of a player's performance matters more than the quality of his play. You argue that Boyer's ability to play beyond 33 is an important indicator of his longevity, when he played fewer games than Santo. Imagine we found out that Santo had lied about his age to seem a better prospect, and was actually four years older. Then he starts out at 24, mixes a couple subpar seasons into the start of his career before coming into his prime at 27...

I thought it was a basic sort of "Ken Boyer's career had a decline phase, Santo's did not, therefore Santo's career rate stats look better than they really should" argument.

Well who else are you going to credit? Does "Wrigley Field" get credit for some Cubs wins? Moreso than any other ballpark?

Perhaps the game's highest honor should be reserved for its greatest players. Those with the most talent and the best performance. Not merely those who happened to succeed due to circumstances which favored their style of play for some reason, even if that success resulted in "real wins." (This is not directed at Santo specifically, but I do believe that the HOF should consider Ability as well as Value.)

If Santo benefitted from Wrigley more than other players, that helped the Cubs win games, and he deserves credit for it.

Aren't good to great players with extreme home/road splits not as valuable as players with similar stats but more normal splits?

I thought it was a basic sort of "Ken Boyer's career had a decline phase, Santo's did not, therefore Santo's career rate stats look better than they really should" argument.

But this is just the standard peak vs. career argument... except that it's a perverse application of the argument here because Santo played more games than Boyer did.

In 1964 Ken Boyer wins an MVP -- then immediately enters his decline phase. Here are his PA/OPS for the four years before the MVP, the MVP (bold), and then the next four years:

616...144
663...135
691...114
693...124
704...130
604...90
534...101
384...100
268...109

Was he injured? Did he just wear out after '64?

the HOF should consider Ability as well as Value

I don't disagree with this. You can make a case that Tommy John accrued more value over his career than Sandy Koufax, but Koufax is definitely more deserving of the Hall of Fame (in my opinion). But how can we conclude that Santo's record in Wrigley was attributable to "circumstances which favored [his] style of play"? Maybe his performance at Wrigley more accurately reflected his "ability" and his road performance was hurt by "circumstances which [adversely affected his] style of play" - like his diabetes (as postulated by Barry's Lazy Boy in #141).

Ultimately, the only way we have to judge a player's "ability" is his "value" - both at home and on the road. Why try to make it harder than it is?

BTW, for those who know more about the history of the season, is there actually a good case for Boyer's 1964 MVP? Just glancing at the stats, it certainly looks like Willie Mays or Frank Robinson deserved it more, even if Boyer's defense was excellent.

Boyer led the league in RBI, hit very well w/ RISP, and had a big September as the Cardinals made up a huge deficit to win the pennant. Clearly the best player on a team that had just lost Stan Musial.

Mays only batted .240 over the last couple months of the season.

Robinson...the Reds blew the lead, getting shutout 3 times in the last week. But they had come back from a big deficit to get the lead, and it doesn't seem to be Robinson's fault they stopped scoring.

I dunno...looks like a number of good candidates. Not sure how I'd pick it but I'd probably have Boyer closer than most Primates. This is just my look back at the records; I don't know what the narrative was at the time.

A flip side to looking at Santo's home-road splits: what are you going to do about Jimmy Wynn? Wynn's career home-road splits;

Home: .256/.376/.443
Road: .245/.355/.429
Astrodome only: .263/.382/.457

We know the Astrodome was a terrific pitchers park. What does that say about evaluating Wynn? That the Astrodome didn't hurt him for some reason, even though it hurt most other hitters, so we should judge him by his road stats? Or do you say that his ability to overcome the offense-suppressing properties of the Dome helped the Astros win baseball games?

In the best single year of his career, 1969, the Astrodome had a bb-ref multi-year hitters park factor of 98 (closer to 100 than it usually was). Wynn hit .303/.477/.561 at home and .235/.394/.454 on the road that combines for .269/.436/.507, 167 OPS+.

On the larger question: Of course Santo belongs in the Hall of Fame. He is well within HoF standards for players and particularly for third basemen. Boyer's election would not lower the standards of the Hall or create very many dubious precedents, but Boyer is a borderline case, and the arguments for and against him are both fairly strong. But maybe Bobby Grich belongs even ahead of Santo.

As BLB said, but with fewer CAPS, if every player was benefitting from Wrigley in the same way than the park adjustment takes care of that advantage. If Santo benefitted from Wrigley more than other players, that helped the Cubs win games, and he deserves credit for it.

Do you also think Wade Boggs shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame? He hit .369/.464/.527 at Fenway, and .354/.443/.491 at home for his career vs. .302/.387/.395 on the road. There have always been players

I generally agree with Bill James on the issue of park effects. There are player's who take advantage of their home parks in a unique fasion and therefore those players are doing something different than most other players who play there. Boggs is the quintessential case for this. He learned to line the ball off the green monster to an absurd degree for a left-handed batter (very similar to Freddie Lynn, actually). I think that we need to take those hits into account as a special circumstance. The fate of Freddie Lynn, who went from a can't-miss HOFer to a good .275 hitter gives me pause in trying to assess who much credit one should give that player. I don't know the answer to this. My gut feeling is that if Wade Boggs had come to the big leagues with the White instead of Red Sox then there is not chance that he'd be a Hall of Famer.

In my opinion, the case of Santo and Jim Rice are very different. I've done this on BTF before, but I think that you can literally find 30 right-handed batters who were very similar players to Rice who played during the exact same time and would have put up at least near-HOF numbers had they played half their games in Fenway during those years. I've made the same case about Yaz, who walked into the Hall, and Oliva, who is still on the outside looking in. If they had come up with the other player's team, then Oliva wouldn't have hit about .330 and been a first ballot HOFer while Yaz would have like .270 with 450 home runs and probably still been a HOFer but probably would have had to wait.

This is my argument with Santo too. We don't know why Santo hit so much better at Wrigley (at least not yet). It might have been something truly unique, or it might have just been that he hit a lot of 385 foot fly balls to left and right centerfield. If it's the latter, is that really some kind of unique skill? Or just a fortunate case for Santo? Regardless, the statistics are pretty clear on this point. His statistics were clearly boosted by his playing in Wrigley Field. You all may wish to argue about true value but if Santo had played for any other team in the National League then we would not be having this discussion at all.

Frankly, I think these things matter much more than we believe. I've made this case before, but our current home/road metrics are a bit obtuse. I do understand the methodology, but any system that give points to someone like Jimmy Wynn for playing in an extreme pitchers park even though he hit better there than on the road seems bizarre (and, yes, I understand the concept of marginal runs. I just don't buy it).

Personally, I think that both Santo and Boyer belong in the HOF, with Darrel Evans. They all seem to be a good bit better than the other third basemen (the Buddy Bells, Toby Harrahs, Jim Ray Harts, Sal Bandos) that played from 1950-1980.

n 1964 Ken Boyer wins an MVP -- then immediately enters his decline phase. ...
Was he injured? Did he just wear out after '64?

I didn't start paying a lot of attention to this team until '67 so I don't really know. The striking thing: after just one bad year in 1965, the Cardinals traded him for a back-of-the-rotation starter (Al Jackson) and a third baseman (Charley Smith) who had never been the hitter Boyer was but was several years younger. Smith only played 116 games in 1966 (injury?) and in the next offseason, the Cardinals traded him away for a famous but past-prime outfielder (Roger Maris), a move that left them without a third baseman and led to the Mike Shannon OF-to-3B conversion experiment. By the time I started listening, Shannon was the 3B.

Personally, I think that both Santo and Boyer belong in the HOF, with Darrel Evans. They all seem to be a good bit better than the other third basemen (the Buddy Bells, Toby Harrahs, Jim Ray Harts, Sal Bandos) that played from 1950-1980.

The Hall of Merit did elect Santo, Boyer, and Evans, all three. We do rank Santo at the top of the three. Bell and Bando draw some scattered support - I think I've occasionally voted for Bando.

His statistics were clearly boosted by his playing in Wrigley Field. You all may wish to argue about true value but if Santo had played for any other team in the National League then we would not be having this discussion at all.

This is nothing other than pure speculation on your part.

We don't know why Santo hit so much better at Wrigley (at least not yet). It might have been something truly unique, or it might have just been that he hit a lot of 385 foot fly balls to left and right centerfield. If it's the latter, is that really some kind of unique skill? Or just a fortunate case for Santo? Regardless, the statistics are pretty clear on this point. His statistics were clearly boosted by his playing in Wrigley Field. You all may wish to argue about true value but if Santo had played for any other team in the National League then we would not be having this discussion at all.

I think you're focusing too strongly on ballpark characteristics as the only possible explanations for home/road splits. For Boggs, for example, quoting from #147 above, "He hit .369/.464/.527 at Fenway, and .354/.443/.491 at home for his career vs. .302/.387/.395 on the road." Wade Boggs hit better <u>at home</u> regardless of where home was. If Wade Boggs had come up with the Baltimore Orioles, he would have hit .350 in Memorial Stadium in his prime. Santo only played one season where his home field wasn't Wrigley, but in that one season his OPS+ was 40 points higher at home (95) than on the road (52). Some players hit well at home - perhaps they perform better in more comfortable surroundings; some players hit poorly on the road - perhaps they're easily tempted by the nightlife on the road. But these preferences for home or road are likely to follow these players regardless of where home is. And if this were true of Ron Santo, then having him trade places with Ken Boyer would have still resulted in Santo outperforming Boyer by a similar amount in OPS+ or other park-adjusted metrics.

You all may wish to argue about true value but if Santo had played for any other team in the National League then we would not be having this discussion at all.

That's not true at all. If Santo (or anyone else) played in Cincinnati, we'd also be having the conversation.

People seem to think that if you play in a hitters park and you do well at home, there is no way you'd do well elsewhere. That's not necessarily true -- there are more than one hitters park out there.

It may be true that Santo had skills that made him uniquely suitable for Wrigley, just as Wade Boggs had skills uniquely suited for Fenway. I don't know if they should be punished for this, however; who are we to speculate that if they played elsewhere, they couldn't have made adjustments that would give them skills there?

Not sure how I'd pick it but I'd probably have Boyer closer than most Primates. This is just my look back at the records; I don't know what the narrative was at the time.

The narrative at the time was that Boyer, as the Cardinals' team captain and genuine clubhouse leader, provided inspirational leadership to spearhead their improbable come-from-behind championship. And of course leading the league in ribbies didn't hurt.

If the Cardinals had finished in second place, there's no way Boyer wins the MVP. Given the furiously close multi-team pennant race that season, most likely whichever team won it would have their big star get MVP (I think Bill James once speculated this): if the Phillies had won, it would have been either Allen or Callison, if the Reds had won it would have been Robinson, and if the Giants had won it would have been Mays.

Objectively, the best players in the league were Mays and (get this) Santo.

It may be true that Santo had skills that made him uniquely suitable for Wrigley, just as Wade Boggs had skills uniquely suited for Fenway. I don't know if they should be punished for this, however; who are we to speculate that if they played elsewhere, they couldn't have made adjustments that would give them skills there?

MGL uses (or used to use) an adjustment for hitters who played in Coors which he called the "Coors Hangover Effect." His data told him that players who joined the Rockies would hit much worse on the road than we would expect from their performances on other teams. The idea being that in order to take full advantage of their home park they would make adjustments which hurt them outside in more normal offensive parks. He discussed this at length when defending the Cardinals' signing of Aaron Miles.

With respect to Santo: if he was able to take advantage of Wrigley Field more effectively than other hitters then I think we should assume that he wouldn't be able to erase this plate approach at will when outside of Wrigley Field. In other words, isolating his road numbers and declaring them his true ability (sans context) is misleading.

Poor Joe Gordon. Finally makes the HOF and Ron Santo brutally hijacks his thread.

This is nothing other than pure speculation on your part.

He had 5000 at bats on the road and posted a 750 OPS. If he had a normal home/road split then he'd be looking at a 790 OPS and it's rather difficult to imagine a situation where a guy with that OPS gets into the HOF. Sure it's speculation but well-founded speculation.

If Wade Boggs had come up with the Baltimore Orioles, he would have hit .350 in Memorial Stadium in his prime. Santo only played one season where his home field wasn't Wrigley, but in that one season his OPS+ was 40 points higher at home (95) than on the road (52). Some players hit well at home - perhaps they perform better in more comfortable surroundings; some players hit poorly on the road - perhaps they're easily tempted by the nightlife on the road. But these preferences for home or road are likely to follow these players regardless of where home is. And if this were true of Ron Santo, then having him trade places with Ken Boyer would have still resulted in Santo outperforming Boyer by a similar amount in OPS+ or other park-adjusted metrics.

I mentioned this. Most players hit about 40 points of OPS better at home. Some hit better on the road, some hit 100 points better at home. Santo hit 158 points of OPS better at home.

I mentioned this. Most players hit about 40 points of OPS better at home. Some hit better on the road, some hit 100 points better at home. Santo hit 158 points of OPS better at home.

Perhaps he adapted his hitting style to maximize success in Wrigley, making it less suited for other parks. ...like people have done for Coors Field. And other hitters didn't adapt their hitting style thus, and therefore had less severe splits.

To hell with Santo.

This is a great day. One of the more deseriving 20thC position players who hadn't made the hall finally got his due.

Both Gordon and Keller, lynchpins of some awesome WWII era Yankee teams, have been cheated of their spot in the hall for far too long. Screwing a guy out of a HoF spot because he served his country is profoundly unfair. And a few years ago, when they finally picked a wartime Yankee, they picked the wrong guy. (Gordon is, IMO, clearly ahead of Rizzuto, and I'd put Keller a smidge ahead of him too.)

I know that Keller is a lost cause, but it'd be a great day if King Kong finally got his due. The last great forgotten 20th century hitter. Like Joey Belle or Dick Allen, 'cept Keller wasn't a foul-tempered malcontent or a cheat. Just came to work, hit the crap out of the ball, and when the back gave out went home and raised some ponies.

Keller is hardly out of the Hall because he served his country - he missed a season and a half. He's not a Hall of Famer because he was done as a full-timer by age 30 and only was a full-time starter for 5 years.

If you're going to get into the Hall for a handful of years, you better be absolutely murdering the league. Keller's best OPS+ in a season is 370th all-time and it's not like he's making it up in non-hitting ways. Keller didn't do anything that Wally Berger didn't do better.

At HOM we have ranked Gordon 16th of our 21 elected 2nd basemen, so probably right around our collective borderline of HOF acceptance - most of us wouldn't want Fox (too late) or Randolph in there, for instance, but Whitaker 2 slots ahead of Gordon is pretty well accepted, I think.

There were 8 HOMers on the two ballots, all told, with Magee and Gordon the two weakest in our minds.
But they COULD have elected a guy we didn't want at all, so...

I have a scary feeling that if Gordon and Santo had put up some partial seasons early or late, the writers who look up their stats would see a "normal" number of seasons, and that might have actually helped. You first call up either guy on bb-ref, and the first thing you notice is that the vertical stack of stats is shorter than the typical candidate - way shorter in some instances.

If it's Koufax or even Kiner, well, instinctively you already knew they're peakaholic candidates anyway. But Santo and Gordon are weird candidates - long infield primes, but few if any other seasons at all. And you know they didn't win a bunch of Cy Youngs or HR titles or anything, so it doesn't feel right when you first look at the page.

I have zero evidence of this, I should add.

Maybe Santo, Kaat and Tiant (or Claude Raymond since he is French Canuck) should do like the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois are doing in Canada and say they are the Hall of Famers and take Joe Gordon's spot in Cooperstown and therby ignoring the electorate's wishes.

Santo is the perfect representation of a Liberal for his whining about the Cubs woes, and Kaat is a leftie representing the NDP.

Nearly 2 years I've been gone from BBTF and Szymbyyavowel is still making his usual ignorant posts. And its not even about the Red Sox, no less!

Anyways, Keller lost a full season and 110 games of a 154 game season to the war (110/154 =1/2?) and at least a season, possibly 2 to being blocked in the minors: Keller's stats from his last couple of years in the Minors aren't just good, they're historically good.

The Keller/Berger comparision is, of course, ridiculous. Other than a fluke year with an OPS+ of 172, Berger's established OPS+ level was in the 140's. Keller was auto-frikkin' matic: 160 OPS+, every year in his peak.

The 1.6666 (happy now, Szy?) years Keller lost to the war come smack in the middle of that peak; in fact, in his 45 games in the partial season his OPS+ was 180 and he lost his age 27 season, so its not entirely unreasonable to expect that he missed an even -greater- season through his wartime service. Couple 6 160OPS+ seasons with, lets say, a 175, and that IS murdering the league, you ignorant red-line riding ####.

As to your argument that a abbreviated but great career is automatic disqualification for the hall, I reply: Puckett! Koufax!
Keller played for great teams, at a great level. His career is short for an HOFer, yes, but his prime is above median for a corner OF in the Hall. His prime years are as good or better than Al Kaline's, even factoring in the defense.

Putting up 6 seasons in the 160 OPS+ range is exceedingly rare. Joey Belle only had 4 such seasons; he's below the HOF line, yes, but Joey Belle + 50% more prime is a HOFer.

FYI, Szymgoscrewyourself: Keller was elected to the HOM. By Red Sox fans, too.

Toodleloo, and X's.

DZOP.

EDIT: And I should add that Keller was at least as great a player as Ralph Kiner, and a near contemporary with a similar career length, so if you think Kiner is a reasonable HoFer you should have no problem considering Keller.

He had 5000 at bats on the road and posted a 750 OPS. If he had a normal home/road split then he'd be looking at a 790 OPS and it's rather difficult to imagine a situation where a guy with that OPS gets into the HOF. Sure it's speculation but well-founded speculation.

I see that you believe his road OPS was his true talent level, but his home OPS was all a product of his environment. Gotcha.

this thread really is bringing the ######## out of the woodwork.

this thread really is bringing the ######## out of the woodwork.

Do you think this Lazy Boy fellow sees the irony in posting this in a thread in which they themselves are the primary participant?

Couple 6 160OPS+ seasons with, lets say, a 175

To get 6 seasons, you've got to include 1947 with 151 ABs. Maybe I missed King Kong's service during the civil war in Greece that held him out that season. You'd also have to round up 1946, but lets not pick nits.

I'm glad Gordon got in, but the best player available (Dahlen) may have received ZERO votes and they were just too polite to print it. Did they read up on any of these guys before voting? It was a really short list, that's the _least_ they could do.

I agree the "vote for no more than four" probably explains the decrease for Santo, the ballots were all full. That's a dumb way to approach an already culled list.

With respect to Santo: if he was able to take advantage of Wrigley Field more effectively than other hitters then I think we should assume that he wouldn't be able to erase this plate approach at will when outside of Wrigley Field. In other words, isolating his road numbers and declaring them his true ability (sans context) is misleading.

First of all, I never said that his road numbers were his true ability. What I said was that Wrigley Field helped Ron Santo to a much greater degree than nearly anyone else in the league. Santo was surely a better player than his road numbers, but how much better? I don't know. And, I believe, neither does anyone else on this site.

As for the idea that players keep traits that might help them in any circumstance? I don't know. That could be, but I have my doubts. Let's look at one of the more effective cases of a player tailoring his swing to take advantage of his home park, Freddie Lynn. Like I said, Lynn was a sure Hall of Famer after 1979 but then was "never fulfilled his potential" after being traded from the Red Sox after 1980s.

Lynn's road numbers are very consistent throughout his career. Only once did he ever hit over .300 on the road, but seven times posted OPS of between 830-900 there and finished with a very nice lifetime road total of .260/.341/.475.

It's his home numbers that are interesting though. Like Boggs, Lynn was adept at hitting in Fenway Park. Between 1974-1980, he hit .350/.421/.608 in the Fens. In the Big A and Memorial Stadium from 1981-1986 Lynn was a very good hitter at home, posting OPS of between .832-.889 every season, but his numbers were nothing like what he had put up in Boston.

Lynn road career: .267/.343/.437 (3922 PA)
Lynn road 1974-1980: .270/.342/.437 (1788 PA)
Lynn road 1981-1990: .266/.343/.437 (2214 PA)

Lynn home career: .298/.378/.533 (3921 PA)
Lynn home 1974-1980: .350/.421/.608 (1725 PA)
Lynn home 1981-1990: .260/.341/.475 (2196 PA)

Now which of these four sets of numbers sticks out?

If you like, you can repeat this exercise for most of those Red Sox players that played on multiple teams and moved in the middle of their careers. Fisk, Burleson, Remy . . . The only two that don't fit this mold were two guys that were traded by the Red Sox heading into their peak seasons -- Cecil Cooper and Boomer Scott.

A similar pattern for Cubs players of Santo's era. Although none of their star hitters changed teams while in the meat of their careers. Several others did though. Jim Hickman, for example. (in about 1100 PAs each).

Hickman road 1962-67,1974: .243/.329/.418
Hickman road 1968-73: .242/.297/.368

Hickman home 1962-67,1974: .233/.311/.402
Hickman home 1968-73: .289/.388/.514

I guess Rick Monday might count.

Monday road 1966-71,77-84: .254/.347/.412
Monday road 1972-76: .265/.357/.451

Monday home 1966-71,77-84: .253/.353/.410
Monday home 1972-76: .287/.380/.509

Jose Cardenal's road numbers increase a good bit during his Cubs years (dues almost exclusively to because he played there during his prime. But his road OPS were .690 before and after Chicago and .754 with the Cubs. His home numbers outside of Wrigley were .674.

This is a dreadful sample but of the good players that played but these players at least manifested very similar road numbers to their non-Fenway/Wrigley home numbers. Almost all of them had their best years in these huge hitters environments and almost all the difference in their numbers was attributed to that environment.

Why do I think that in the quest to elect Santo, the Hall is going to end up electing Hodges, Oliva, and Kaat instead?

I see that you believe his road OPS was his true talent level, but his home OPS was all a product of his environment. Gotcha.

I never said this and addressed this above. But, let's give Santo the benefit of the doubt and say that his true level of ability (in neutral parks during the same era) was something like .270/.367/.431. That's still a really good player, considering the gold gloves and team leadership and all. Those numbers would be very similar to Joe Gordon's neutralized numbers and they would both be very fine Hall of Famers, in my book.

What I said was that Wrigley Field helped Ron Santo to a much greater degree than nearly anyone else in the league.

Anthony, your argument breaks down right here, at it's beginning, because:

1. Even with all of Santo's road PA's, over time there will be some players who have a home/road split as large as Santo's JUST BY CHANCE ALONE. So, not sure how you can assert that Wrigley Field 'helped' Santo at all. We can do some fancy statistical tests to figure out just how likely that chance is, but even that will not answer the question as to whether Santo's splits are due to the ballpark, or due to chance.

2. Even if Wrigley did help Santo beyond the average 10% production increase a player normally has at home, you still need to articulate WHY that would matter? If, for example, Santo had the exact same overall numbers that he has, but his home and road splits were identical, why would that make him more HOF worthy? He would have contributed just as many wins for his team as he did with his 'lopsided' splits, so why would it matter?

The biggest advantage though is that most of the 60-year old and younger Hall of Famers only remember Reynolds as one the best of the three great pitchers on those great Yankees teams from when they were little kids. Joe Morgan is 65 and was only 9 years old when Reynolds mowed down Brooklyn in the 1952 series. This group has been a mirror image of the Frankie Frisch VC -- it has shown a pronounced bias against players it played against. So, Gordon and Reynolds, whom virtually none of the VC remember well get a lot of support.

Reynolds is no HoFer---it's not even that close---but in the 1949-53 stretch when the Yankees won five straight championships, the combo of Reynolds, Raschi and Lopat may have put together the best simultaneous five year run of any three starters in history. Too bad in a way that they couldn't be selected as a joint entry, because they were the heart of the greatest team accomplishment of all time.

Do you put no stock into the controlling his diabetes theory? I thought this was somewhat widely accepted as at least part of the reason for the severe split.

This group has been a mirror image of the Frankie Frisch VC -- it has shown a pronounced bias against players it played against. So, Gordon and Reynolds, whom virtually none of the VC remember well get a lot of support.

We ought to just go to back to the Frisch/Morgan/etc type VC - so long as we rotate the committee head so that everyone has an opportunity to select their favorite teammates.

the combo of Reynolds, Raschi and Lopat may have put together the best simultaneous five year run of any three starters in history. Too bad in a way that they couldn't be selected as a joint entry, because they were the heart of the greatest team accomplishment of all time.

What's the latest word on the Yankee defense in that era?

I've heard theories that they were an insanely good defensive team, which lead to all of these pitchers mysteriously "improving" once they came to NY.

the combo of Reynolds, Raschi and Lopat may have put together the best simultaneous five year run of any three starters in history

Perhaps, but I think I'd have to check out what Lemon/Wynn/Garcia or Maddux/Glavine/Smoltz might have to say.

The Keller/Berger comparision is, of course, ridiculous. Other than a fluke year with an OPS+ of 172, Berger's established OPS+ level was in the 140's. Keller was auto-frikkin' matic: 160 OPS+, every year in his peak.

Wow, 4 years. Talk about automatic!

Who would've thunk that Travis Hafner was one more good season from the Hall of Fame?

You know what Berger did that Keller didn't? Play centerfield. And play more.


Anyways, Keller lost a full season and 110 games of a 154 game season to the war (110/154 =1/2?) and at least a season, possibly 2 to being blocked in the minors:

Keller played every game when he came back? Impressive...

Keller's stats from his last couple of years in the Minors aren't just good, they're historically good.


Really? Which was the historically good year? 1939 when he hit a little better than Jim Gleeson and not as well as Buddy Rosar and Bob Seeds? The 1938 in which he played second fiddle to Babe Dahlgren? Keller performed well, no doubt, but there's nothing all that historically impressive about those years. Unless you're conjuring up a fictional season by sheer power of your unimpressive vitriol.

As to your argument that a abbreviated but great career is automatic disqualification for the hall, I reply: Puckett! Koufax!

Puckett shouldn't be in the Hall. Keller should be in the Hall of Fame if he was as good a hitter as Koufax was a pitcher.

Couple 6 160OPS+ seasons with, lets say, a 175, and that IS murdering the league, you ignorant red-line riding ####.

So, your position is that we should induct people into the Hall of Fame for purely theoretical play??

Putting up 6 seasons in the 160 OPS+ range is exceedingly rare. Joey Belle only had 4 such seasons; he's below the HOF line, yes, but Joey Belle + 50% more prime is a HOFer.

Interesting, that you ignore the fact that Belle hit almost as well as Keller for 50% longer and had 3 seasons that were better than anything Keller ever did.

Well, not that interesting, but you're mildly amusing at least. On the usenet scale, your flame is about a 2 on the Asbestos Scale. In other words, not even enough for me to gently have to wipe my head with a handkerchief.

I'm a merciful fellow and if you want to try again, I grant you immunity for any TOS violation for the rest of this thread, so long as it's directed at me and not anyone else.

Reynolds is no HoFer---it's not even that close---

I worked up my RA+ equivalent record for him and got a career record of 153-124. I didn't do a defensive support adjustment for him; its likely that his defensive support was pretty good. (Following up on that argument would transfer a little of his credit to Rizzuto, McDougald, DiMaggio, et al.) Some others with RA+ equivalent career records that come out to something similar in value: John Tudor 120-80; Sal Maglie 117-75 (not giving him any extra projection for being banned); Mike Cuellar 167-144; Sam McDowell 154-123. All of them good pitchers, but without particularly long careers. Reynolds had his best run starting in 1947. I have his equivalent records for 1947-1952 as 15-12, 15-11, 13-11, 16-11, 15-10, 18-9 with 1952 as his single best year. I didn't work up Raschi and Lopat.

Nearly 2 years I've been gone from BBTF

...after picking up an epic case of the clap from a Garnet and Gold girl.

...after picking up an epic case of the clap from a Garnet and Gold girl.

Jesus, that's some memory you've got. I haven't dated her for 2 years. (But she's a big time TV reporter now).

Nah, I went to law school. Been busy. Thinking of starting a discussion about Tribune's bankruptcy filing over in that thread. Looks like it might be an interesting case of a potential 548 fraudulent conveyance in the buyout context.

1. Even with all of Santo's road PA's, over time there will be some players who have a home/road split as large as Santo's JUST BY CHANCE ALONE. So, not sure how you can assert that Wrigley Field 'helped' Santo at all. We can do some fancy statistical tests to figure out just how likely that chance is, but even that will not answer the question as to whether Santo's splits are due to the ballpark, or due to chance.

This is the part where statisticians lose me, Kevin. Ultimately, statisticians will argue that almost any set of stats generated by baseball players can be generated by random chance. You seem to be arguing that the 4700 plate appearances in which Santo differed dramatically from his other 4700 can be just chance. I guess that's true in the really big picture (although I defy you to find more than 6 players with those kind of splits in the last 50 years). Ultimately, I fall back on Occam's razor on this one. I like baseball too much to believe that the careers of anyone with less than 5000 plate appearances (all but 325 players from the last 50 years) have any statistical significance. If that's the crux of your argument, then you win.

2. Even if Wrigley did help Santo beyond the average 10% production increase a player normally has at home, you still need to articulate WHY that would matter? If, for example, Santo had the exact same overall numbers that he has, but his home and road splits were identical, why would that make him more HOF worthy? He would have contributed just as many wins for his team as he did with his 'lopsided' splits, so why would it matter?

First, I have never argued about value, mostly because I don't really know what that means. I only started this by saying that Santo and Boyer were tremendously similar (much more similar than the old Bartell/Bancroft comparison of the old Historical Abstract, I would contend). I have been arguing simply that I think that Santo's overall career numbers have been overstated because we haven't fully come to grips with Santo's extreme park splits. My point is that his overall stats would be worse in all but a couple of parks (Fenway, maybe Crosley). I am not arguing that the distribution of his stats is a problem. It's the reliability of his home stats that is the problem.

I think that the HOF voters understand this (although perhaps only subliminally). For players with huge numbers like Banks and Williams (who "only" had 100 differences between their home/road splits) voters decided that playing at Wrigley didn't matter much. For Santo, whose stats by conventional standards, are borderline, I think that voters need more time to be swayed.

Kevin, I know that you believe in park factors and in DMB. I suggest that you take the overall numbers of Santo (and Banks or Williams for that matter) and modify them according to DMB's park factors (and you can add park factors for walks and strikeouts too if you like). You'll be surprised how blah Santo becomes. I have done this, of course (because I'm a loser). By my count, using just this method and his real life numbers (not his splits) Santo was a .263/.349/.426 hitter with 287 homers. Williams comes out at .279/.350/.457. Now maybe DMB park factors are just a pile of crap. I don't know.

I think that the HOF voters understand this (although perhaps only subliminally). For players with huge numbers like Banks and Williams (who "only" had 100 differences between their home/road splits) voters decided that playing at Wrigley didn't matter much. For Santo, whose stats by conventional standards, are borderline, I think that voters need more time to be swayed.

I think you give the voters way too much credit.

The voters see 500 less hits and 80 less career homers from Santo than they do from Williams. I think it's as simple as that. They see 2700 hits and 425 homers as just good enough, while seeing 2200 hits and 350 homers as not quite good enough.

If the voters collectively looked any deeper than that, we wouldn't see the fairly massive positional disparity in HOF members -- never mind home/road splits.

Like I said way back, I ultimately have no problem with Boyer's candidacy -- 3B is horrendously under-represented in the hall. Perhaps they're penalizing players like Evans, Boyer, and Santo to make up for mistakes like Lindstrom.

Do you think this Lazy Boy fellow sees the irony in posting this in a thread in which they themselves are the primary participant?

I include myself in the ########.

It's kind of bewildering Joe Torre didn't get elected as the voters were told expressly to consider his time as a manager. If you include that, Torre's at least as much of a gimme as Santo, Dahlen or Deacon White.

I'm a merciful fellow and if you want to try again, I grant you immunity for any TOS violation for the rest of this thread, so long as it's directed at me and not anyone else.

Meh, I don't know if I have it in me, Szy. The Yankees missed the playoffs and are moving into a mallpark. Dustin Pedroia is the reigning MVP. The Yanks are about to sign a 380lb lefty and a 10-cent brain righty as their big off-season moves, and if that fails, the fallback is a recovered-alcoholic ex-Red Sock. My new girlfriend lives in Boston, so I spend every weekend surrounded by ######## who drop their R's and think Sam Adams and nachos is the height of gastronomy. The Democrats took over both houses of Congress. No, I think that I just don't have it in me anymore.

But let one thing be absolutely clear: You are, were, and always will be a ignorant ########## who never contributed an interesting thought to the discussion on this website. And if you have contributed something of merit in my years of absence of which I am not aware: blind squirrel, monkeys typing Hamlet, &c &c.

the combo of Reynolds, Raschi and Lopat may have put together the best simultaneous five year run of any three starters in history

Perhaps, but I think I'd have to check out what Lemon/Wynn/Garcia or Maddux/Glavine/Smoltz might have to say.

Glavine had two fine five year stretches: 1991-95 and 1998-2002. In the first one Smoltz was just getting warmed up and Maddux wasn't even there for the first two years. In the second one Smoltz spent his last two years in the bullpen.

The Cleveland trio were at their peak from 1949 to 1954, but during that stretch Wynn had two years where his ERA+ was below 100. And none of them distinguished themselves particularly in the World Series, whereas the Yanks' Big Three were positively brilliant, with a 16 and 6 record and a collective ERA more than a full run below their regular season records.

So with all due respect, Steve (and snapper)---and considering just how central they were to that unequalled string of rings---I'd still go with what I wrote the first time around. Remember, I'm talking about 3 pitchers and 5 simultaneous seasons, not their entire careers.

I think that the HOF voters understand this (although perhaps only subliminally).

And yet, they look ready to elect Jim Rice....

You say you're not talking about value, but really you are in a negative sense. Someone upthread alluded to the fact that this seems to be a classic value vs. ability debate. You're implicitly arguing that the Hall of Fame should be reserved for the players of greatest ability, and so we should look to their records to see whether there is anything therein that suggests they would do better or worse if placed in a neutral park. In essence, Hall of Famers should be the players you would choose if you were drafting a team and didn't know the conditions they would play against, so that you would place a premium on their ability to succeed in many environments.

Others, including myself, think you should a player by how much value they provided their teams. Part of my reasoning for looking at the question this way is that the question of normalizing involves a lot of hypothetical guesswork, and introduces more subjectivity in my eyes; who's to say what the appropriate baseline is? Part of it is just an aesthetic preference for a Hall that includes players who were able to uniquely take advantage of the settings they played in. Would Ozzie Smith have been the fielder he was in a time other than the turf-happy 70s and 80s? I don't know, and I don't want to guess because I think it's wonderful to recognize a player who played a style of the game distinct from many others. So perhaps Ron Santo or Wade Boggs wouldn't have hit as well under other circumstances. But perhaps they would. We can't be sure. And in the games they played, their home advantage helped their teams win games, which is what matters for me.

Joe Gordon is fine. I wouldn't choose him over Dahlen, but at least he reasonably fits. Now, Rice over Raines or Sutter over Blyleven is another matter altogether...

Perhaps the folks in Cooperstown will allow the Hall of Merit to have a tiny corner in the basement so that the rest of us can take our grand-kids there in our dotage to show them who the truly great players of our youth were. They can fill the room up with computers and old baseball books, and every Sunday a different HoM voter could give a talk about a lesser known favourite.

But let one thing be absolutely clear: You are, were, and always will be a ignorant ########## who never contributed an interesting thought to the discussion on this website. And if you have contributed something of merit in my years of absence of which I am not aware: blind squirrel, monkeys typing Hamlet, &c;&c;.

This was the best you could do?

Shame.

Actually, I'm now generally curious as it appears that you've confused me with Kevin. I'm not a Red Sox fan, a Boston resident, a Democrat or someone who worshiped Dustin Pedroia for years as you seem to imply with your rantings.

Not that your insults were all that biting, but I would like to at least make sure that I'm not receiving someone else's jabs. I honestly don't remember ever having any run-ins with you, though I guess I could be wrong.

What is dzop's beef with Szymborski? I haven't seen such outright assholism here since kevin left. You know, 'zop, your one redeeming quality is that you provide a counterbalance to the left-leaning tendencies of this place. Welcome back.

I still can't figure out a reasonable standard for 3B. Santo doesn't look like a terrible omission from the HOF to me, until I realize that he's not dramatically different from Scott Rolen. Rolen doesn't "feel" like a HOF on first glance to me, but I suspect that he is one, total lack of black ink aside.

I don't see the Santo-Boyer comparison, though. The only think Boyer seems to be better at is winning undeserved MVP awards.

I think Gordon is being sold short, however. I think he was a pretty glaring omission from the HOF if you think Rizzuto is at all a reasonable HOFer; I don't see much of a contest between the two players.

I also don't see how to exclude Dick Allen from the HOF. I could see if he was a borderline candidate, but he's basically a better Albert Belle with a longer career.