Minnie Minoso would be my first choice from this group. Had he been allowed to play earlier, he might have had the stats to get voted in.
Joe Torre has the combined player-manager credentials to get in and maybe qualifies solely as a manager. But let him retire first.
Jim Kaat One of those pretty good pitchers with real long careers. A borderline case but I’d take him.
Luis Tiant for no other reason than ALL of us did Tiant impersonations in the sandlots in the 60s-70s.
Once Joe Torre retires, he should go in. He was below borderline as a player and at this point could go in as just a manager. So let him wait a few more years.
The rest are not Hall of Fame material to me. I need to look at a player and check his stats and think, this was a great players for a long period of time.
Thurman comes the closest for me, but he was my favorite player as a kid and so I know I am not rational about him.
Jim
Not really. That was a pretty weak thread.
Carl Mays. A great pitcher of his era, and he is really only one pitch away* from being in the Hall of Fame already. He was dominant, and it was his trade that started the Yankees dynasty and ended the Red Sox one.
For more recent players, I’d definitely vote for Oliva (definitely), Kaat, and Dick Allen. Also Munson and Minoso.
*Literally: if he hadn’t hit Ray Chapman, he would have gone in long ago.
Well, if there’s something you can add to the argument of whether Ron Santo belongs in the HOF, let’s have it. I only linked the earlier thread because I thought it would be easier than simply repeating myself and the comments of others in my post.
At the risk of getting the discussion into a level of detail that would perhaps ill serve the thread, Carl Mays wasn’t really “Dominant” in the sense I think the word is usually meant. He was a very good pitcher, but relative to his league he was pretty much the same as Dave Stieb; about the same career length, same ERA relative to the league norms, and they were somewhat similar as pitchers, too.
The main difference between Carl Mays and Dave Stieb is that Mays pitched for remarkably good teams, and got a huge amount of offensive support, whereas Stieb was generally poorly supported throughout much of his career, even when he was on otherwise strong teams.
For more recent players, I’d definitely vote for Oliva (definitely), Kaat, and Dick Allen. Also Munson and Minoso.
*Literally: if he hadn’t hit Ray Chapman, he would have gone in long ago.
[/QUOTE]
I think a good starting place for any candidate would be the Keltner List:
Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?
Was he the best player on his team?
Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?
Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?
Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?
Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?
Do the player’s numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?
Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?
Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?
How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?
How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go into the Hall of Fame?
non-peak seasons.
If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?
What impact did the player have on baseball history? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?
Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?
Sure, let’s do this.
No.
Certainly. Ernie Banks played with Santo, but Banks’s really good years were before Santo’s career started.
This is not easy to answer; the 60’s were the beginning of the era of great third basemen. I think most would agree Brooks Robinson was better. In Santo’s league, his main competition is Ken Boyer, who was not quite the hitter Santo was, but was likely a better fielder and obviously was a bit more successful in terms of championships. I’m inclined to say Santo was, for a significant period of time, the best third baseman in the NL.
Not a positive one.
Santo was significantly slowed down at age 33, and his career was over at age 34. So he went a bit past his prime, but not very far.
I don’t think so. Obviously, a lot of players who are not yet eligible are better, but among guys retired 5 years or more I’d vote for a few other guys first.
None of Santo’s top ten comparables are in the Hall, though in all honestly nobody is really all that comparable to Santo; his closest comp is Dale Murphy, who was not even a third baseman and is not THAT close (875.)
Santo’s argument basically goes to 1. his on base percentage, and thus high OPS, 2. relative to his time, 3. as put up by a very good defensive third baseman. Santo doesn’t have a lot of highlights per se, but in terms of his effectiveness he WAS a ballplayer who put a heck of a lot of wins on the board.
His career OPS+ is 125. HOF third basemen who are better:
Mike Schmidt - 147
Eddie Mathews - 143
Harmon Killebrew (sort of) - 143
Frank Baker - 135
George Brett - 135
Wade Boggs - 130
Pretty short list.
Santo played in a time of far less offense than today so his raw numbers don’t look as good as raw numbers today. In 1968, when he batted .246 with 26 homers, he was actually an excellent hitter, far exceeding league averages. His 1968 is, in context, almost as good a season as Andruw Jones’s 51-homer year last year. His 1967 - .300 with 31 homers - was as good as David Ortiz was either last year or this year.
Of course, Santo’s numbers should also be viewed with the note that he was an outstanding defensive player.
Easily. Any third baseman as good who is eligible is in.
Santo finished 4th and 5th and 8th twice. His vote totals were always driven down by his misfortune in having been signed by the Cubs. He deserved more votes in 1964, when he and Willie Mays were the league’s best players, but other than that year he was never remotely deserving of an MVP Award.
Santo went to nine All-Star games, and deserved to; this is a pretty good total.
As it happens Santo’s teams did not win any pennants, but in fact there have been pennant winning teams that did not have anyone having as good a year as Ron Santo had several of.
No.
Yes.
Billy Williams was an exact contemporary of Santo’s and he had some better seasons in the 1960s. Fergie Jenkins may have had one or two, also.
In general, you’re not noting one HUGE advantage Santo had statisically–Wrigley puffed up his raw numbers quite a bit.
That’s my problem with Santo. If we elect him that makes 4 members of the 1960s Cubs as HOFers (Banks, Jenkins and Williams), which is inconsistent with the team’s performance, ie, how could a team with that many HOFers suck so badly for so long?
I don’t see anyone who belongs. Torre will go in as a manager.
The Veteran’s Committee has outlived its usefullness, and should be done away with.