Voters from 1980, you were idiots. And you people didn’t get a lot smarter. Over time Santo received more support, but never enough to get into the Hall. Never close to enough. Needing 75 percent of the BBWAA votes to get in, he topped out at 43.1 percent in 1998, his offensive numbers from the pitching-dominated 1960s obscured by the cartoonish steroid era that was in full bloom in the late 1990s—and his defensive contributions simply ignored, I guess.
Look, there are thousands of words I could write on Santo’s worthiness for Cooperstown, and theories why he hasn’t gotten in. His nine All-Star seasons. His offensive numbers being diluted over time by steroids and the forgotten fact that Santo played during a pitcher’s era, a period marked by a higher mound and bigger strike zone. His signature 1964 season when he led the league in walks, triples and on-base percentage, in addition to hitting .313 (seventh) with 30 home runs (sixth) and 114 RBI (second). He was second in slugging at .564. Oh, and he won the Gold Glove that year. For all of that, this wonderful two-way player finished eighth in the 1964 MVP voting.
...But get this straight: Santo didn’t deserve to be in the Hall of Fame because he was dying. He didn’t deserve it because he was a popular Cubs broadcaster for nearly two decades. He didn’t deserve it because he kept his diabetes a secret, playing all those years while monitoring his condition by feel. If he felt weak, he ate a candy bar. Then he played every day, averaging 159 games (with 26 home runs and 100 RBI) from 1961-71.
Santo didn’t deserve the Hall for any of those reasons. He deserved it—he deserves it still—because he retired as one of the best two or three third basemen of all time. Dead or alive, Ron Santo should be in the Hall of Fame. How appalling that death made its final call before Hall voters made theirs.
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. JRVJ Posted: July 23, 2011 at 02:39 PM (#3883807)Perspective, please.
At the time of his retirement he was. That's what the article said, "... he retired as one of the best two or three third basemen of all time." Bill James for instance had him 3rd at the time of his retirement.
You already have Fergie Jenkins, Ernie Banks, and Billy Williams as Hall of Famers from the 60s Cubs. If you add in Santo, you now have four HoFers from a team that won nothing, and participated in one of the best-documented late-season fades of all time in 1969, with Santo treated as the leader of the faders (on August 5 he was hitting .317/.413/.549, then he hit .224/.317/.339 the rest of the way).
Of course, neither Banks nor Jenkins is in the HoF for what they did in the 60s. Banks was at the end of his career, Jenkins at the beginning. And it's not fair to single out Santo as the leader of the collapse when it was truly a team effort. But that's the baggage he carries to a large extent.
-- MWE
True that Santo, Williams, and Jenkins couldn't win together. Give them late 1950's Ernie Banks and it would have been a different story. Still hardly a valid reason for keeping Santo out, as he was better than Williams to anyone who acknowledges the defensive spectrum.
The solution - add Santo via the veteran's committee and remove the Cubs' obviously overrated manager, Hall of Famer Leo Durocher, for not winning with 4 HOF'ers!
It's never a sure thing, of course. But if I was going to put money on it, I'd bet on Santo getting in.
(*I know based on history, Larkin will almost certainly jump up enough in the voting to get in. But not everyone pays attention to history, and it's a big enough gap that we'll see some doubters.)
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main