Very cool.

It was a nice touch how the Cubs also went out and let the Cardinals kick the #### out of them. Santo was never better on the radio than when the Cubs were losing.

I wasn't able to make it up to Cooperstown this induction (I have a high school class reunion coming up and couldn't take time off for both) or catch it on TV, but apparently Ron's widow gave one heckuva acceptance speech.

She did. The mind boggling revelation to me was that Santo raised $65 million for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation over his lifetime.

What a shock that Soriano half assed something

Wait, where is Soriano half-assing this?

Thats what his back foot does on every low and away slider.

I just caught an inning of this game, and caught that and was pretty touched and I'm not even a Cubs fan.

what's the case for him over Ken Boyer? I dont recall their career stats as all that dissimilar.

Never saw him click.

what's the case for him over Ken Boyer? I dont recall their career stats as all that dissimilar

Pretty much everything. Santo peaked higher*, had the longer prime, hit better in ~1300 more PAs (OPS+ Santo 125, Boyer 117) and has more black ink. Boyer, I believe, would be considered the better glove, though both won 5 GGs (Boyer played 2 seasons before they began handing out the award). The only other thing is Boyer winning one of Willie Mays' MVPs. No idea if Boyer deserves war credit.


*By WAR:

Santo: 9.6, 8.7 8.7, 7.3, 6.3
Boyer: 7.6, 7.1, 6.5, 6.0, 5.8

Santo was a substantially better hitter, especially at his peak. His advantage in oWAR is 10 wins (he loses 3 or so to defense compared with Boyer). Santo was also more durable (part of the oWAR advantage but important) with 9400 PA to 8200. So, better peak, longer career, better counting stats, better saber stats, equal number of GG, slight advantage in AS, about 400 more starts at 3B -- the only thing in Boyer's favor is his MVP* and one ring.

So it's close but Santo has an edge by almost every measure.

People of course don't have to take WAR as gospel, but Santo compiled 40 WAR in his 5-year peak 64-68 (ages 24-28). ARod's best 5-year consecutive is 42 WAR (which undersells ARod who had a few other years that good); Schmidt's looks to be 1 win behind Santo (underselling Schmidt); Brett had only 3 seasons with 8+ WAR; Mathews only 2 seasons right at 8; Boggs only 2 seasons at 8; Chipper has never touched 7 (surprised me). He might have the best 5-year consecutive peak of any 3B ever and maybe only 2nd to Schmidt under 5 best years.

During that peak, Santo led the league in walks 4 times (2nd the other year); times on base 3 times (top 10 all 5); OBP twice (top 10 all 5); WAR once (top 5 in position players all 5); and, this is hilarious, triples once. He was top 10 in OPS+ 4 times. His defensive range must have really been something as he won GG despite making lots of errors (including leading the league at 3B one of those years). He basically always led the league in putouts and assists (playing time being part of that) but also #1 or #2 in RF/9 and 4 consecutive years at #1 in TZ runs at 3B. (Of course those are estimated and probably based on putouts, assists, RF, etc.)

* which wasn't actually his best year WAR wise or OPS+ wise and I'm guessing comes down to his league-leading 119 RBI.

does OPS+ account for park effects?

Yes.

By the way, 3B is one spot where it's quite hard to draw the in/out line. I think Santo should have sailed in with the writers but just below Santo are all sorts of guys I'd be OK with being in but not particularly upset that they're out -- Rolen, Nettles, Bell, Boyer, Beltre, Bando (add Boggs, Brett and Baker and the whole "B" thing is getting pretty weird).

The actual voters though -- nuts. Brooks has 73 WAR but he was voted in mainly as the greatest fielding 3B of all time. The voters seem to draw the line somewhere around Chipper. So far, to be voted into the HoF as a 3B, you need either 3000 hits or 500 HR or 37 GG. Presumably Chipper will sneak in on his 304/402/533 line.

I still dont get it. Careerwise Santo has 13 pts in OBP and 2 pts in slug. on Boyer. How does this translate into 8 OPS+?

Boyer gets a bit more singles, but if we convert OBP and slug into a seasonaplus for Santo, the singles will be accounted for within that. So 13 pts in OBP is about 7 walks, and 2 pts in slug. is half a double. Lets turn one of the walks into a a double. THat leaves us with

Santo +6 walks; and 1 2B per season.

BUt wait: BOyer steals 3 more bases per year, he strikeouts 16 times less; and he hits into 3 less DPs. On the steals, Santo is only at 50% and BOyer is better percentagewise, but lets call it 3 SB. For the strikeouts, I would think it means BOyer is better at making it contact, is it reasonable to suppose he might have moved 3 or 4 baserunners over a base? As for the DP, I think it amounts to a man on first w/ one out or two outs vs no one on and 2 out or end of inning. It's not quite the same as a walk but it's got to be very close to the value of a walk in that situation.

So for the 3 less GIDP, I'll take away 3 walks from Santo does that seem that fair?

OK now lets use linear weights. Santo 3 walks x 0.3 + 1 2b x 0.75 = about 1.65 runs.

BOyer gets 3 extra SB, I think these are often undervalued (due to leverage, which I think would be more likely for players who steal marginally) I'm going with Palmers original 0.3 and what about moving those 3 baserunners up? Call it 3 x 0.25. Total of 1.65 runs.

I havent even considered park effects, but it seems Bush or whatever it was in the early 60s was a bit better than Wrigly, in the second half of the 60s and early 70s it's reversed (at least according to what I see on Baseball Reference).

Considering all that I think these two are as closely matched offensively as one can find. I dont know where that OPS+ thing is coming from.

Defensively I dont see much difference either, I think Santo is starting an extra DP a year (26 vs 25).

You guys really think there's that much difference between Santo and Boyer. I dont.

Santos peak was during a tougher hitters era then it was for boyer.

Is that why the ops+ is so dodgy? Here's another case I dont get Sal Bando batting line is: .254/352/.408 for a 119 OPS+. But as he played from 1965-1981 I would have thought it was a better offensive era for much of that. Although Oak. park does diminish defense, but that just seems odd compared to Boyer who has .287/349/.462 and gets a mere 116 OPS+.

Its adjusted by the enviroment. Thinl someone who.puts up.santos nmbers where there are only 4 runs a game scored on average would make him more valuable then someone who put up similar numbers with scoring at 5 runs a game on average. (made up the numbers for the example)

I'm sure that's it, I just assumed Wrigley was always a hitters ball park, and St Louis was always depressing offense but not so at least not in the first half of the 1960s. THen they reverse roles for the second half of the 60s and Wrigly goes even more so in the early 70s. I didnt even check for the latter half of the 1950s which was the beginning of Boyer's career but I guess it was more of a hitters era.

Actually the park Boyer played in was a hitters park. Busch Stadium (I) was simply Sportsman's Park re-named. By the time the Cardinals moved into the multi-purpose, cookie cutter,Busch Memorial Stadium, Boyer was done.

Sportsman's Park was the most extreme hitters park in the NL in the late 1950s & early 1960s.

sunday

oakland in the early 70's was downright hostile to offense. bando's 1973 he hit .322/.406/.542 away from home.

the only thing you could make happen in oakland back then was home runs. otherwise, it was futile to try and score a run

No idea if Boyer deserves war credit.

Maybe, maybe not; Boyer lost a couple of minor league seasons (1952-53) to military service. He didn't debut in MLB until 1955 but it is possible that he could have started earlier without those two years lost to the military. Considering that Boyer had 574 PAs in 1955 at a 94 OPS+, it is reasonable to assume that he could have at least played in MLB before then.

Someone mentioned upthread about the relative defensive abilities of Boyer and Ron Santo; Boyer was used as the Cardinals' more or less regular CF in 1957 and didn't embarrass himself. It is hard to imagine Ron Santo being able to do that. I'm not saying that Boyer deserves to be in the HOF but he was a very good ballplayer.

It was a nice touch how the Cubs also went out and let the Cardinals kick the #### out of them.

that was something. but i saw the infamous 12-run seventh on saturday, and i have to say there may have been only two or three actual hard-hit balls in that whole barrage. the hitters kept going the other way and dumping it over the infield or down the line. there were no home runs. none.

seven doubles, right?

yeah, and they were mostly bloopers. i was watching on WGN and those guys were just kind of laughing by the end of it.

Question: with Santo now (I think deservedly) in the HoF, who's the next best eligible Veteran's-type option at this position? It could indeed be Ken Boyer, but it's possible Bob Elliott, Stan Hack, or someone else might be that person.

To elaborate on what everyone else has said: B-R's league context for Santo is .268/.333/.399; for Boyer, it's .269/.335/.412. So Santo's career SLG is 65 points better than league average, and Boyer's is 50. Not an enormous difference, but a substantial one, especially considering Santo's longer career.

thanks for the info on park/era effects. I didnt realize that Boyer started about 5 years before Santo and it does make a difference on the OPS+ thing for sure. Also about the old Cardinals field, I wasnt sure about that. They played the '67 world series in something called Busch though, right?

Q about why the park effect for Wrigley starts to rise in the late 60s then gets even higher in the early 70s What is going on there?

Why does Travis Wood hate Santo?

They played the '67 world series in something called Busch though, right?

Yes, that was the new Busch Stadium, that opened in 1966. The old Busch, formerly called Sportsman's Park, was an excellent hitters' park, especially for batting average.

Question: with Santo now (I think deservedly) in the HoF, who's the next best eligible Veteran's-type option at this position? It could indeed be Ken Boyer, but it's possible Bob Elliott, Stan Hack, or someone else might be that person.

Going by the Hall of Merit ranking vote, and leaving Dick Allen out of it (you can argue about his position), in order:

Jud Wilson (Negro Leagues)
Heinie Groh
Ezra Sutton (1870's-centered career)
Darrell Evans
John Beckwith (Negro Leagues)
Stan Hack
Graig Nettles
Ken Boyer

Those are in the HoM - we have an unusually large number of HoM/not HoF at 3rd base.

Then, not in the HoM, from the 2012 ballot tally:

Sal Bando (9th)
Ed (or Ned) Williamson (16th) (19th Century)
Bus Clarkson (17th) (end of the Negro Leagues, briefly appeared in majors)
Buddy Bell (24th)
Bob Elliott (31st)
(all of these are still ahead of Pie Traynor, who's 36th)

Question: with Santo now (I think deservedly) in the HoF, who's the next best eligible Veteran's-type option at this position? It could indeed be Ken Boyer, but it's possible Bob Elliott, Stan Hack, or someone else might be that person.

I would suggest Nettles or Dar. Evans. They both get credit for like 21 seasons at 3B (per Baseball Ref) although Evans did not play more games than Santo there. Cant recall on Nettles. But assuming it means they were physically able to hold down that position some credit should be given for longevity. I mean at some pt dont you have to come up with some sort of relationship between better stats vs longevity? If they could have held onto 3B for 7 years more than Santo then I think they have to get some credit for that.

Q about why the park effect for Wrigley starts to rise in the late 60s then gets even higher in the early 70s What is going on there?

Would guess it has something to do with the following (both just speculation on my part):

a) Other stadiums that were built/opened around that time. Since park factor is relative, Wrigley's park factor would go up if the new stadiums were more pitcher-friendly.

b) Night baseball was (I believe) becoming increasingly prevalent in other parks while Wrigley continued to play only during the day. Since it's easier to hit during the day, this would make Wrigley appear to be a more hitter-friendly park.

a) Other stadiums that were built/opened around that time. Since park factor is relative, Wrigley's park factor would go up if the new stadiums were more pitcher-friendly.

b) Night baseball was (I believe) becoming increasingly prevalent in other parks while Wrigley continued to play only during the day. Since it's easier to hit during the day, this would make Wrigley appear to be a more hitter-friendly park.

You're a good speculator. Both things are true.

Among the new parks coming into the NL in that period: Shea Stadium, the Astrodome, the (next) Busch Stadium, Jack Murphy (or whatever they called it then) in San Diego, Riverfront, Veterans, and Three Rivers. A collection that strongly tilted in the direction of pitchers' parks, especially when phasing out Crosley Field and the old Busch/Sportsman's.

And this was the era in which the night game matured from a special event to the norm -- everywhere but Wrigley.

well looking at some parks: SF actually gets more hitter favorable in the early 70s as does the new Veterans stadium in PHilly. BOth by about 3-4 pts. Three Rivers for some odd reason is favoring pitchers a couple pts more than Forbes Field; I guess this teams were built to take advantage of the vast spaces in old Forbes Field. She stadium also seems to about 2 pts more pitcher friendly in the early 70s...

Im going to hit the stadia mentioned above next.

I'd hate to think some little understood park effects plus a Bill James campaign seperates a Hall of Famer from a Pretty Good player.

Going by the Hall of Merit ranking vote, and leaving Dick Allen out of it (you can argue about his position), in order:

Jud Wilson (Negro Leagues)

I did a double take when I saw his name on your list because I was sure he was already in the Hall of Fame, and sure enough Boojum was elected in 2006.

As SteveT can attest, Candlestick Park was enclosed in 1971 making it a little more hitter friendly. Also, a weird type of Astroturf was installed that year too. (It was like colored cement.)

I want to follow up in order to post the info on the other parks, but also want to bump the thread so I can make some more comments about the Santo vs Boyer thing a little later.

Busch I, in St louis is indeed a hitters paradise. Its about dead average for Boyers first two years 56-57 but from 57-65 It's just about 108. The new park in '66-'70 is 99.5 and from '70-'73 its' 101.

Note: I used the rolling average provide at Baseball Ref. which might lead to lead to some errors when the park changes over, I did this real fast so not sure.

San Diego Stadium from '69-73 is 95.5. Park Jerry in Montreal is 100.5 for the same period. In Cincy: Crosley '66-'70 is 108. the new Riverfront Stadium '70-73 is I think 94; not sure but dont think I used the (misleading) rolling average for the first year. The Astrodom is about 97 this entire period '66-'73. Its very consistent which may say something about the effect that weather can have in all this.

Wrigley from '60-65 is 103; from '66-70 is 107. From '70-73 is 110. What is happening in Wrigley is gradual and continues the whole period '60-74. Indeed I think the increase in the early 70s can be attributed to entirely what is going on in Cinci and San Diego as well as night baseball in places like Pitt; Shea stadium, etc. As for the late 60s; this could be due to increasing night games and the colder air associated. Busch II by itself does not account for the late 60s surge in Wrigley, most of it must do with night baseball.

I'll get back to Boyer/Santo later...

As SteveT can attest, Candlestick Park was enclosed in 1971 making it a little more hitter friendly. Also, a weird type of Astroturf was installed that year too. (It was like colored cement.)

The Astroturf was actually installed in 1970, a year before the grandstand enclosure was completed. Both changes made the park a bit less pitcher-friendly, but I think the turf was more impactful than the enclosure, which redirected the wind more than eliminating it. But that turf, my god, it made solid marble seem soft. I can't imagine what it must have been like to play football on that. The turf was removed, thank goodness, and grass replanted in 1978.

Dodger stadium is 106 from '59-61; then a consistent 92 from '62-70; and then 70-73: 95. I think they were working on it in the early 60s, didnt they call it Chavez Ravine? This is not mentioned in Baseball Ref. That change alone could boost stadium in the NL 1.5 pts.

SOmething that Bill James alluded to years ago, the very consistent scores in both Astrodome and Dodger Stadium certainly suggest that rainy climates could be a source of much of the variation in park effect in other locations.

Still not totally sure about Wrigley in the early 70s; maybe only half of that is the new stadiums the rest must be night ball. ATL started to take away hits in the early 70s, definitely a launching pad in the late 60s.

Dodger stadium is 106 from '59-61;

That wasn't Dodger Stadium, that was the Coliseum.

then a consistent 92 from '62-70; and then 70-73: 95. I think they were working on it in the early 60s, didnt they call it Chavez Ravine?

That was Dodger Stadium, which opened in 1962, and was often called simply Chavez Ravine because that's where it's located. (For some reason no one seems to call it that anymore.)