Baseball Veterans Committee elects to the Hall of Fame... (1 Viewer)

[SeveredHorseHeads]

Bill James thinks Santo is the 6th best 3B of all time.

Santo Should be in the Hall

I don't care what Bill James says. Ron Santo was third fiddle on a team that won nothing.

That's a stupid standard, but whatever. I'll go with Bill James over some hater.

Who would you consider his closest contemporary, Brook Robinson?Brooks Robinson was arguably the greatest defensive 3rd baseman ever. He compiled 16 gold gloves during his career, was a 15 time all star, AL MVP in 1964, 2X WS champ and won the WS MVP one of those years.

Ron Santo doesn't reach the halfway point on any of those

For Bill James to call Ron Santo a better baseball player than Brooks Robinson because Santo put up better offensive numbers over a couple of years is ridiculous.

World Series Titles by a 3rd basemen is completely meaningless when evaluating them as a player. Joe Crede and Bill Mueller won a WS. Are they better than Santo? Brooks Robinson wasn't close to the offensive player that Santo was. Robinson was slightly above average for his career. Defense doesn't make up for this deficiency no matter how many subjective awards you site.Also, who cares about Brooks Robinson? What does he have to do with this? Santo should get in on his own merits and the stats show pretty conclusively that he should be in the Hall of Fame.

It's pretty clear your judgement is clouded here as you already refered to Santo as a "Marginal Talent" which is completely absurd by any standard.

 

[Limp Ditka]

Bill James thinks Santo is the 6th best 3B of all time.

Santo Should be in the Hall

I don't care what Bill James says. Ron Santo was third fiddle on a team that won nothing.

That's a stupid standard, but whatever. I'll go with Bill James over some hater.

Who would you consider his closest contemporary, Brook Robinson?Brooks Robinson was arguably the greatest defensive 3rd baseman ever. He compiled 16 gold gloves during his career, was a 15 time all star, AL MVP in 1964, 2X WS champ and won the WS MVP one of those years.

Ron Santo doesn't reach the halfway point on any of those

For Bill James to call Ron Santo a better baseball player than Brooks Robinson because Santo put up better offensive numbers over a couple of years is ridiculous.

World Series Titles by a 3rd basemen is completely meaningless when evaluating them as a player. Joe Crede and Bill Mueller won a WS. Are they better than Santo? Brooks Robinson wasn't close to the offensive player that Santo was. Robinson was slightly above average for his career. Defense doesn't make up for this deficiency no matter how many subjective awards you site.Also, who cares about Brooks Robinson? What does he have to do with this? Santo should get in on his own merits and the stats show pretty conclusively that he should be in the Hall of Fame.

It's pretty clear your judgement is clouded here as you already refered to Santo as a "Marginal Talent" which is completely absurd by any standard.

While the specific position played may not be looked at when it comes to post season success, the fact that he had 0 success, let alone experience, when it comes to the post season plays a factor on whether or not Ron Santo is in the HOFIf you think it doesn't, I'm not the only one around here with "clouded judgement"

 

[SeveredHorseHeads]

Bill James thinks Santo is the 6th best 3B of all time.

Santo Should be in the Hall

I don't care what Bill James says. Ron Santo was third fiddle on a team that won nothing.

That's a stupid standard, but whatever. I'll go with Bill James over some hater.

Who would you consider his closest contemporary, Brook Robinson?Brooks Robinson was arguably the greatest defensive 3rd baseman ever. He compiled 16 gold gloves during his career, was a 15 time all star, AL MVP in 1964, 2X WS champ and won the WS MVP one of those years.

Ron Santo doesn't reach the halfway point on any of those

For Bill James to call Ron Santo a better baseball player than Brooks Robinson because Santo put up better offensive numbers over a couple of years is ridiculous.

World Series Titles by a 3rd basemen is completely meaningless when evaluating them as a player. Joe Crede and Bill Mueller won a WS. Are they better than Santo? Brooks Robinson wasn't close to the offensive player that Santo was. Robinson was slightly above average for his career. Defense doesn't make up for this deficiency no matter how many subjective awards you site.Also, who cares about Brooks Robinson? What does he have to do with this? Santo should get in on his own merits and the stats show pretty conclusively that he should be in the Hall of Fame.

It's pretty clear your judgement is clouded here as you already refered to Santo as a "Marginal Talent" which is completely absurd by any standard.

While the specific position played may not be looked at when it comes to post season success, the fact that he had 0 success, let alone experience, when it comes to the post season plays a factor on whether or not Ron Santo is in the HOFIf you think it doesn't, I'm not the only one around here with "clouded judgement"

Yeah, you and Joe Morgan are in the same category. I don't "think" it doesn't have anything to do with it, I know it doesn't. There is plenty of people in the Hall without a ring so using that as some kind of standard is a joke.

 

[Limp Ditka]

Bill James thinks Santo is the 6th best 3B of all time.

Santo Should be in the Hall

I don't care what Bill James says. Ron Santo was third fiddle on a team that won nothing.

That's a stupid standard, but whatever. I'll go with Bill James over some hater.

Who would you consider his closest contemporary, Brook Robinson?Brooks Robinson was arguably the greatest defensive 3rd baseman ever. He compiled 16 gold gloves during his career, was a 15 time all star, AL MVP in 1964, 2X WS champ and won the WS MVP one of those years.

Ron Santo doesn't reach the halfway point on any of those

For Bill James to call Ron Santo a better baseball player than Brooks Robinson because Santo put up better offensive numbers over a couple of years is ridiculous.

World Series Titles by a 3rd basemen is completely meaningless when evaluating them as a player. Joe Crede and Bill Mueller won a WS. Are they better than Santo? Brooks Robinson wasn't close to the offensive player that Santo was. Robinson was slightly above average for his career. Defense doesn't make up for this deficiency no matter how many subjective awards you site.Also, who cares about Brooks Robinson? What does he have to do with this? Santo should get in on his own merits and the stats show pretty conclusively that he should be in the Hall of Fame.

It's pretty clear your judgement is clouded here as you already refered to Santo as a "Marginal Talent" which is completely absurd by any standard.

While the specific position played may not be looked at when it comes to post season success, the fact that he had 0 success, let alone experience, when it comes to the post season plays a factor on whether or not Ron Santo is in the HOFIf you think it doesn't, I'm not the only one around here with "clouded judgement"

Yeah, you and Joe Morgan are in the same category. I don't "think" it doesn't have anything to do with it, I know it doesn't. There is plenty of people in the Hall without a ring so using that as some kind of standard is a joke.

And which member of the veteran's committee are you?

 

[shuke]

I'll be concerned when Selig retires and the next guy lets Rose in. Despite the fact he gambled on baseball, they still should let the all-time hits leader in.

I'm all for Pete Rose getting in. As long as he waits as long as Joe Jackson has too.

I think there's a major difference in their cases, though. The 1919 Sox were paid to throw their Series, whereas Rose at least claims he always bet on the Reds to win. That should provide a deciding factor, at least to me. One bet on them to lose, the other bet on them to win.

Except as I understand it, Shoeless was not one of those participating in the fix. Rose, by betting on his team WHILE A MANAGER essentially rises to the same level as betting against his team. He would overuse a reliever or perhaps NOT do everything needed to win a game that he did NOT bet on, to save for when he did have $$ riding on the next game.

Rose is a disgrace to baseball and to professional sport - and sport as a whole. He deserves exactly what he has received.

There is evidence that Jackson participated in the fix. He testified in court that he agreed to throw the World Series. He took $5000 from the gamblers. He hit .375 in the Series but only .250 with 0 RBI in the first four games the Sox purposely lost and his hits in the final game happened after the Reds already had a big lead. Even if Jackson played his best, he certainly knew about the fix, didn't tell anyone, and, as the team's best player, his merely agreeing to go along probably induced the other guys to go ahead with the plan.I see a distinction with Rose. You don't want a manager to bet on his own team because he'd be tempted to do the very things you point out. But we don't actually know if Rose did those things. I'm not sure if he deserves a lifetime ban or not. Jackson does.

 

[GRIDIRON ASSASSIN]

If getting into Baseball's Hall of Fame were a 40-yard dash, Ron Santo just finished two feet short of the finish line.

 

[Shrek]

I really thought that Santo would finally get in. They just need to disband the veteran's committee.

I'd rather see the pipedreams of marginal talent, as well as their respective fanbases, be disappointed every two years.

Out of 13 3B's in the Hall at this point, if you include Santo's stats, he places in the top 5 in nearly every meaningful category, and he isn't last in any of them. If you want to hate on someone or an organization, that's fine, but to say it's "where he belongs" is

 

[Koya]

I'll be concerned when Selig retires and the next guy lets Rose in. Despite the fact he gambled on baseball, they still should let the all-time hits leader in.

I'm all for Pete Rose getting in. As long as he waits as long as Joe Jackson has too.

I think there's a major difference in their cases, though. The 1919 Sox were paid to throw their Series, whereas Rose at least claims he always bet on the Reds to win. That should provide a deciding factor, at least to me. One bet on them to lose, the other bet on them to win.

Except as I understand it, Shoeless was not one of those participating in the fix. Rose, by betting on his team WHILE A MANAGER essentially rises to the same level as betting against his team. He would overuse a reliever or perhaps NOT do everything needed to win a game that he did NOT bet on, to save for when he did have $$ riding on the next game.

Rose is a disgrace to baseball and to professional sport - and sport as a whole. He deserves exactly what he has received.

There is evidence that Jackson participated in the fix. He testified in court that he agreed to throw the World Series. He took $5000 from the gamblers. He hit .375 in the Series but only .250 with 0 RBI in the first four games the Sox purposely lost and his hits in the final game happened after the Reds already had a big lead. Even if Jackson played his best, he certainly knew about the fix, didn't tell anyone, and, as the team's best player, his merely agreeing to go along probably induced the other guys to go ahead with the plan.I see a distinction with Rose. You don't want a manager to bet on his own team because he'd be tempted to do the very things you point out. But we don't actually know if Rose did those things. I'm not sure if he deserves a lifetime ban or not. Jackson does.

If what you claim about Joe Jax is true, then I certainly change my opinion of his standing in baseball.As for Rose, the act of betting on your own team as manager is so far beyond the pale it absolutely merits banishment from the game.

 

[Koya]

Cheating and betting on one's own sport are VERY different. One hurts the integrity of the game on an indivudual level. Not that cheating should be accepted, but it does not threaten the game as much as fixes/betting on the game.

Cheaters are disgraces in my book, btw. But they do not threaten the integrity of the game as much as one willing to gamble on their own team.

Gambling on other sports? That has me confused. WTF does that have to do with the price of tea in china? Betting on your own GAME is the issue... not gambling at large.

I just figured that if a guy plays baseball and gambles on, oh let's say, soccer, then he should at least be watched, because what's to stop him from gambling on his own sport? Besides, I think it was only Rose who bet on his own team, whereas it was a collection of players from 1919 that conspired to throw the series.So a guy who shoots himself full of (un)natural chemicals in order to drive a ball farther and therefore try for the record books isn't as bad as someone who bets on his own team to win every time he does bet on them? The integrity of the game has been lost for years, likely for decades at that. The fact that a guy bet on his own team to win, I believe, is at least on a par with a guy who cheats to help his team win.

I am not saying I accept cheating. But you are totally missing the point here in regard to betting on your own game. You DO understand that by betting on your team to win, that when you DONT bet on your team it is likely that you won't use every last measure to win that game and you might use TOO much to win the games you have money on (ie overusing a relief pitcher).And you totally lose me on the "if you bet on other sports you have to be watched" - that is a bit ludicrous unless it is apparant that a player/coach has a gambling problem which may lead to betting on their own sport/games.

To be honest, I don't know why I put that in there. I guess that because I have an addictive personality (that is, when I find something I like, I keep doing it for a long time) I think others have a similar problem with becoming compulsive gamblers or something to that effect.(I'm not a compulsive gambler, but that's because I stay away from it)But I do understand what you mean on not betting on teams on certain days. I guess I had the mindset that it shouldn't matter if you have money on a team that day or not (if you do gamble), you should still play as hard as you can.

I hear ya - at least you are openminded enough to recognize something that at first you may not have thought about. A nice and far to rare a trait here.You do bring up an interesting point about cheating though, and my take is the following: Much as I disdain cheating, you need consistency within a sport. So, if a corked bat, or repeated scuffing/spitballs don't warrant being excluded from the hall, I can't see why steroid users would be subject to anything worse.

Personally, cheating is cheating. Repeated cheating should mean no hall. But that is not how baseball has approached things (i.e. spit/scuff/cork) so if they allow for that cheating with a joke and a smile, you need consistency when looking at cheating through roids.

The hall lost that high ground a while ago with just about every player from the 60s and 70s and especially with Gaylord Perry.

I totally agree with you. Baseball essentially accepts cheating. Embraces it, even. Part of the lore you can say.With this in mind, it seems odd that they take such a stance on chemical cheating while laughing the rest away. Cheating is cheating in my book and shouldnt be tolerated.