Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Monday, June 26, 2006

Ron Santo

Eligible in 1980.

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 26, 2006 at 03:31 AM | 119 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

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.

Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. OCF Posted: July 03, 2006 at 06:54 PM (#2086136)
How much difference is there, team to team, on things like the pitchers and catchers going after the lead runner on bunts with a man on second?
   102. Steve Treder Posted: July 03, 2006 at 06:55 PM (#2086137)
Very interesting post, Mike.

I'd offer the speculation that popups fielded by 3B is meaningfully impacted by the degree to which the pitching staff is a flyball vs. groundball staff ... were the Cub staffs during Santo's career significantly flyball oriented? Jenkins would sure seem to be.
   103. Mike Emeigh Posted: July 03, 2006 at 07:08 PM (#2086161)
I'd offer the speculation that popups fielded by 3B is meaningfully impacted by the degree to which the pitching staff is a flyball vs. groundball staff ... were the Cub staffs during Santo's career significantly flyball oriented?

They didn't appear to be, as I said in #101 - perhaps a mild tendency in that direction. They were typically around mid-pack in terms of OF putouts, which probably understates the tendency a bit since a lot of fly balls leave Wrigley. Retrosheet data from the Santo era isn't complete enough to pin this down definitively, although I could probably make a pretty good estimate (subject to the "when-I-have-time" caveat).

-- MWE
   104. JPWF13 Posted: July 03, 2006 at 07:22 PM (#2086179)
I think Santo's broadcasting "homerism" works against him in the same way that it worked against Phil Rizzuto for a long time.

???? Rizzuto's homerism didn't hurt him- he doesn't get in the HOF at all without his broadcast career "endearing" him to legions of NY Yankee Fans and to the NY Media which campaigned relentlessly for his enshrinement
   105. Cabbage Posted: July 03, 2006 at 07:34 PM (#2086190)
WRT Santo homerism. You can best appreciate his broadcasts if you understand that the broadcast team is "Pat Hughes and Mascot". I think DjF first used that term on this site and its a pretty good way to look at it. I think Pat does a great job and Ron is... well.... Ron.

for the record, I enjoy Ron. Sure, I sometimes laugh at him instead of with him. Yet, there is something about his irrational homerism that I find comforting. Perhaps its because so many of us need that irrationality to keep rooting for the Cubs....
   106. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: July 04, 2006 at 03:40 AM (#2086745)
Did Ron Santo ever pair with an aging Harry Caray? That would have been one hilarious broadcast team! I get WGN but I don't ever remember hearing Santo.
   107. Mike Emeigh Posted: July 05, 2006 at 01:26 AM (#2087656)
Quick follow-up:

I've looked at a couple of Retrosheet seasons, and Santo appears to have had more putouts on plays that were started by other fielders than the norm. I need to look at some more seasons (I just looked at 66-68), but I don't have time to do much right now.

-- MWE
   108. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 05, 2006 at 02:00 AM (#2087671)
Just a quick Santo note. SABR's Baseball Reserach Journal just came out, and it's got a long article about the college of coaches. Interestingly enough, the College was around, essentially, for Santo's first two full seasons (as well as Williams'). I'm not sure why, but I find it kind of amazing that they cubs outstanding young talent made it through successfully...and then came Leo....

Talk about your change of directions.
   109. OCF Posted: July 06, 2006 at 01:57 AM (#2088809)
MWE: thanks for looking. (I assume your #108 is at least vaguely related to my #102.) I remain interested in whatever you can dig up.
   110. Howie Menckel Posted: July 29, 2007 at 12:39 AM (#2459351)
Writer thinks a rule change will help Santo's chances, but Santo says he isn't happy.,1,5777770.story?coll=cs-cubs-headlines

If one of the "grown-ups" here thinks it's better to post this elsewhere, go for it.
   111. yest Posted: July 29, 2007 at 01:59 AM (#2459655)
In the 2007 vote, 27 different players received at least one vote. But only 10 will be listed on the next ballot. Also the electorate will not include media members (winners of the Spink Award for reporting and the Frick Award for broadcasting) lost their spots on the committee, which now will be restricted to the living Hall of Famers only.

Voters will be allowed to vote for zero to <u>four</u> of the players listed on the ballot. With fewer choices, it seems more likely that a candidate could receive 75 percent of the vote.

somehow I think with the new changes the percentages will be even farther from 75%

and we can forget about any pre 1950 players geting on the ballot
   112. yest Posted: July 29, 2007 at 02:01 AM (#2459662)
A 16-member panel of players, executives, historians and baseball writers will be appointed by the Board to vote on managers at the winter meetings next December, with three-fourths approval required for election. The Hall is continuing to study its voting procedures for executives but Forbes Clark said the goal is to have them in place in time for an election at the same time as the vote on managers and umpires.

this one probly would induct people but in the same way as the veternens committe did
   113. yest Posted: July 29, 2007 at 02:06 AM (#2459685)
cancal my second statment I just found this

<quote>The Hall of Fame also made 1943 a dividing line. Beginning in 2009, players whose careers began in 1942 or earlier will be reviewed every five years by a board-appointed committee of 12 Hall of Famers, veteran writers, and historians.

"We have very few players who played with or against those guys, Bob Feller might have, Bobby Doerr might have, very few others,'' Hall of Famer president Dale Petroskey said. "They were never going to get many votes. It's a very important point.''


even when the HoF gets a smart idea they mange to blow it (5 years (though they'll probobly change it after the second vote))
   114. Howie Menckel Posted: July 29, 2007 at 04:33 AM (#2460051)
A LOT of this is left brain vs right brain.

I am a journalist, but my twin brother is a CPA.

For a writer, I am great at math - I balance my checkbook in my head.

For an accountant, my brother is a great writer - he can spell words correctly without spellcheck.

I know many of the voters in BBWAA - and it pains me to see the disconnect.
They really mean well, but they just can't get it.

The worst example is the "5 pct rule."
You basically have a group of people who unofficially agree that only "all-time greats" should get 1st-ballot consideration.
And the same group agrees that if you aren't on 5 pct of the ballots in your 1st try, then you're off the ballot for good.

Now, if you understand both points of view, you could easily say that it makes more sense if anyone doesn't get 5 pct on the SECOND try, then they're off the ballot.
That's probably not a great rule - 3 to 5 years surely makes more sense - but it escapes the 'idiotic' tag, because at least it doesn't put two approaches directly in conflict.

I feel like a product of a mixed marriage, sympathetic to both worlds but feeling powerless to fix it.
   115. jimd Posted: July 30, 2007 at 06:28 PM (#2461727)
But only 10 will be listed on the next ballot.

Restricting the number of choices may yield a small boost in percentages.

Voters will be allowed to vote for zero to four of the players listed on the ballot. With fewer choices, it seems more likely that a candidate could receive 75 percent of the vote.

Wrong. Restricting the number of votes cast will cause the percentages to drop. (Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. See the runoff elections of the mid 1940's.)

I suppose the HOF feels they should restrict the number of votes cast because they are also dropping the number of eligible candidates. But this is wrong. By the theory behind the Hall's election system, it's supposed to be a bunch of independent "thumb-up" or "thumb-down" votes, with no restriction on the number of "thumb-up"s. The overall size of the Hall is shaped by the number of Yes votes that are cast. Small-Hall advocates are allowed to voice their opinion by casting a blank ballot. So, Large-Hall advocates should be allowed to counterbalance that by casting a full ballot, voting Yes for everybody they think should be in, not forced to pick and choose because of a limitation. If a voter thought that 8 were worthy, and Santo was 6th amongst them, Santo has just lost that vote.
   116. Paul Wendt Posted: December 10, 2008 at 05:08 PM (#3024965)
Veterans committee support for recent players, "2007" and "2009" elections.
What are the conditions likely to cause change in electoral support?
- Ron Santo's case is more prominent than ever, because he has been the leading ballot incumbent for two more years and because he talks about his case
- Each voter gets only four votes
- There are only ten nominees, who are ten among 27 on the ballot for 2007.
- Frick and Spink Award-winning writers and broadcasters were eligible to vote for 2007 but are not eligible for 2009.
. . .
- 82 ballots cast two years ago, 64 cast this weekend.

Here is the raw decrease in support, the difference between numbers of votes cast for the player in 2006/2007 by 82 voters and in 2008/2009 by 64 voters.

Numbers of votes, 2007 minus 2009
22 Gil Hodges
18 Maury Wills
18 Ron Santo (-18 votes matches the decrease in number of voters from 82 to 64)
14 Tony Oliva
14 Jim Kaat
7 Joe Torre
5 Al Oliver
4 Dick Allen
4 Vada Pinson
2 Luis Tiant
108 sum

Electorate (eligible voter)

Does anyone know the pertinent numbers of Spink and Frick Award winners?
- num. winners in living in winter 2007,
- num. winners living this weekend in fall 2008,
- num. winners for 2007 and 2008 (elected 2006 and 2007) who were living this weekend?


Among the 27 players on the final ballot two years ago, seven played in the majors before 1943, so they are in another jurisdiction today. This year the Historical Overview Committee nominated ten from the twenty ballot incumbents who remain eligible. Among the twenty recent players on the ballot two years ago, the ten 2009 nominees ranked 1-6, 8, 9t, 11t, and 14 in that election. (The HOC passed over Don Newcombe 7, Roger Maris 9t, Curt Flood 11t, and Minnie Minoso 13 --where the numerals represent 2007 election ranks among the twenty who remain in this jurisdiction.)


Two years ago the 82 voters cast 488 Yes votes (5.95 per ballot cast) including 413 for recent players (5.04) and 321 votes for the ten players who are on the ballot today (3.91 per 2007 ballot cast).

Today the 64 voters cast 213 votes for the ten nominees (3.33 per "2009" ballot cast).

The difference 108=321-213 is also the sum of the differences reported in the table above.
   117. sunnyday2 Posted: December 10, 2008 at 06:32 PM (#3025085)
They passedover Newcombe and Minoso in order to put Al Oliver on the ballot. JFC. I had missed that.
   118. Bleed the Freak Posted: December 03, 2010 at 01:49 PM (#3701593)
RIP Ron.

You were an inspiration to myself and to others for your hardwork and dedication to the game and to life.

If anyone hasn't yet, I recommend that you pickup a copy or rent "This Old Cub," but Ron's son Jeff, which gives a fuller glimpse of Ron's background.

I was fortunate enough to meet him with my wife in San Diego during the summer of 2005. Gracious, joking, he always made time for the fans, and even signed a couple autographs.

You were a class act Ron and I will miss you.
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.



<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF


Thanks to
Dock Ellis
for his generous support.


You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.


Page rendered in 0.4436 seconds
41 querie(s) executed