Yesterday, the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown announced a list of 10 names from the post-1943 era that will be up for consideration this year. Among those names are Gil Hodges, Joe Torre, Ron Santo, Jim Kaat, Dick Allen, Luis Tiant, Tony Oliva, Al Oliver, Maury Wills, and Vada Pinson.
Candidates from pre-1943 were announced, but that's for another time. The guys above are the meat and potatoes. They will be voted on by current living Hall of Fame members and will need 75 percent of the vote to garner induction. There are 64 living Hall of Fame members; meaning 48 will need to say "yes."
In past years, the committee has been relatively stingy with the election process, and Torre himself has fallen short in three separate election bids. The reasonable expectation would be for two or, at the most, three of these players to be inducted next July.
The fellas at the 'Table poured some beer and got into an old fashioned debate. Immediately, Dick Allen (350 home runs, but under 2,000 hits), Tony Oliva (never reached 2,000 hits), Gil Hodges (compares far too closely to George Foster, Jack Clark and Boog Powell), and Maury Wills (too one dimensional) were knocked out.
Those are the rules.
Let's breakdown the remaining candidates.
Joe Torre (C, 3B - Brewers, Cardinals, Mets, and Braves)
Torre was a nine-time All-Star, won a gold glove, and was MVP of the National League in 1971. Over his career, he amassed 2,342 hits, 252 home runs, and a .297 career batting average.
He finished in the top-10 in hits, OBP, and RBI four separate times, but none after 1971. Torre even won himself a batting title. From a statistical standpoint, he's very much like Gary Carter from a numbers perspective, but Carter spent his entire career behind the dish. From 1971 on, Torre spent his career at the corner-infield spots.
He's a dead ringer for Ryne Sandberg's numbers as well, and he played nearly the same number of years. It's tough to compare him to other players, such as Bill Dickey, strictly because war stopped some of those careers for a time.
As a player, he's borderline. We're not advocates of putting in players because someone else was in. Just because Carter is in (and we don't think he should be) does that mean we put in Torre? Our answer on that front is no.
However, voters are allowed to consider the managerial careers of these players. If we do that, there is no way you cannot include Torre. That being the case, it also is a shame he hasn't received more than 45 percent of the vote.
Our Verdict: IN, but just because he managed so well.
Jim Kaat (P - Washington/Minnesota, Chicago, Philly, New York, and Cardinals)
Kaat won 16 Gold Gloves in his 24 years of pitching, becoming one of the best ever at fielding his position. He recorded 283 wins, finishing in the top-10 seven times, good for 31st all-time. He had phenomenal control, finishing with one of the fewest walks-per-nine innings ratio in the game and registered in the top-10 for that category 12 times.
19 comments Last one added 7 months ago — Leave a Comment
t k 9 months ago
Santo should definitely be elected.
You compared him with catchers. How about comparing him with third basemen? There are fewer third basemen in the HOF than players from any other position. Here are the ten major league Hall of Fame third basemen (with Santo included) ranked by career OPS+:
Schmidt 147
Mathews 143
Brett 135
Baker 135
Boggs 130
Santo 125
Collins 113
Kell 111
Lindstrom 110
Traynor 107
Robinson 104
He hit more home runs in his career than any third baseman currently in the Hall of Fame other than Mike Schmidt and Eddie Mathews. He won five consecutive gold gloves. He had at least 30 win shares in 4 consecutive years (1964-1967).
Bill James on Ron Santo: "Ron Santo towers far above the real standard for the real Hall of Fame."
http://books.google.com/books?id=mUzTJ4-8N0EC&pg=RA1-PA542&lpg=RA1-PA542&dq=ron+santo+bill+james&source=web&ots=UEje8WncVz&sig=Xpqo9jNgYuiUcwhdcZRqCzsdZZs&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PRA1-PA541,M1
Edit Comment Cancel
Collin Hager - The Roundtable 9 months ago
T, I compared him to catchers because those are who his stats compared most favorably with over the course of his career. I'm not saying that he doesn't deserve to be in, but that I wouldn't vote for him. I think it will be close. He has stats that say he could be in, but he has stats that say he doesn't belong as well. It's like Jim Rice. As a Sox fan, I wouldn't vote him in, either.
Edit Comment Cancel
Eric Gomez 9 months ago
God I hate SABRmetrics. I really do.
Edit Comment Cancel
Carl Stream 9 months ago
Why?
Edit Comment Cancel
Glynn McGehee 9 months ago
give Jim Kaat some love
Edit Comment Cancel
J.C. Ayvazi 9 months ago
Rejecting Gil Hodges out of hand makes me think the beer you were served is spiked with roofies.
When Vin Scully - aka The Voice of God - says Gil is a Hall of Famer, that's all this Dodger fan needs.
Sadly, we have too many people looking for reasons to keep people out of the hall instead of appreciating so many great players.
And put The Who on the jukebox already!
Edit Comment Cancel
Collin Hager - The Roundtable 9 months ago
Ah, ask and ye shall receive! The Who it is!
There was plenty of beer served, but the rejection of Gil Hodges out of hand was more because the article got too long to mean anything. The debate wasn't as interesting in comparison with the others, especially when we did some digging on Pinson and Oliver. I'm a Gil Hodges fan, but I'll also admit to being a Hall of Fame elitist.
I agree, there are too many reasons to keep people out of the Hall of Fame, but the criteria for being put on the ballot needs to change as well. Hodges should have been considered earlier, but guys like Todd Stottlemeyer (who, yes, received a vote on the writer's ballot) shouldn't be considered at all.
I'll also add a Gil Hodges section to this so you can see what was discussed. Love the Vin Scully comment, and the fact is he would know.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Schlossberg 9 months ago
Joe Torre will eventually be in when he decides to retire from managing... Please don't bring up Yogi Berra when comparing his numbers to Ron Santo, ya they might be similar but Yogi Berra has 10 championships and 14 pennants..
Edit Comment Cancel
Collin Hager - The Roundtable 9 months ago
Obviously, that's the major difference. This was just to get a baseline for numbers that can get you into the Hall of Fame. Trust me, there isn't anyone that would call Santo equal to Berra in terms of impact to his team or to the game. Yes, this is coming from a bunch of Red Sox fans.
Edit Comment Cancel
L.J. Burgess 9 months ago
Richie Allen was more than 'hits'...I'm always amazed that he's ignored out of hand like this.
Allen, a .292 hitter, produced over a run per game played, Santo did not. Their fielding records are comparable.
Let's reconsider.
Edit Comment Cancel
Brandon Sanders 9 months ago
Ron compares almost identically to Mike Schmidt in all categories except homers. Santo did it in a tougher era as well.
I know it starts to get cloudy when you bring in personal things, but Ronny played with diabetes his entire career in a time when there wasnt much to do about diabetes.
He belongs, I hope the Committee finally gets it right.
Edit Comment Cancel
Collin Hager - The Roundtable 9 months ago
I think the vote will be close. I'm pretty sure the sentiment will be there to put him in ahead of Pinson and Oliver, who I think really do belong there.
You're right, bringing the personal items into it makes the vote cloudy. I hope that's not the full reason he gets in, meaning the sympathy aspect to it. Santo was a fantastic player, no doubt about that. I don't want that to be the deciding factor. Let the man's career stand alone, he sure as hell could play the field.
Edit Comment Cancel
t k 9 months ago
I think people misuse similarity scores all the time. I don’t think they tell you very much, and using them as a litmus test for the Hall of Fame is kind of nuts.
Dale Murphy is Santo’s most comparable player according to the similarity scores on baseball-reference.com, with a similarity score of 875. Now, 875 is not particularly close. You can look at a lot of players whose top ten most similar players all have similarity scores higher than 875 (I will give two examples below). However, Dale Murphy was one hell of a player. He won two consecutive MVPs, one of only a handful of players to ever do that. I think he is a meaningful Hall of Fame candidate. However, he was an outfielder. I would think he would be a much better Hall of Fame candidate if he had been a third baseman, like Santo was, or a shortstop or a second baseman. Santo’s career OPS+ was higher than Murphy’s, 125 to 121.
In The Politics of Glory, Bill James said the following:
The Hall of Fame, in a sense, has been caught between hops at third base. Third base is a half-and-half position-half of a “slugger’s position” like first base or left field, but half of a “glove man’s position” like second or short. A good third baseman is expected to contribute both ways, more so than a player at any other position.This, in effect, creates a third set of standards, unique to the position. The Hall of Fame selection system uses two distinct sets of de facto standards. Bobby Doerr doesn’t have numbers that would put him in the Hall of Fame if he was an outfielder, but he was a second baseman, so he’s in. The same with Arky Vaughan, Yogi Berra, Bill Dickey, Johnny Bench, Pee Wee Reese and many others.
Conversely, the career batting statistics of Rocky Colavito would unquestionably qualify him for the Hall of Fame - if he had been a shortstop. Joe Judge’s numbers would be plenty good - if he was a second baseman.
Third basemen are neither fish nor fowl; they need a third standard. The system just isn’t quite subtle enough to form an intermediate standard, and honor the guys like Santo and Ken Boyer who played a good third base (Santo won five Gold Gloves) and also could hit. [end quote]
For another thing, saying that Santo “compares favorably” to a number of Hall of Fame catchers is misleading. Why don’t you check out the top ten similarity scores of other third basemen in the HOF? There are two Hall of Famers on Fred Lindstrom’s list, one of which is Elmer Flick, a really weak selection as an outfielder. There are two Hall of Famers on Jimmy Collins’ list. There are three Hall of Famers on Pie Traynor’s list, all of which are weak VC selections. There are three Hall of Famers on George Kell’s list. Brooks Robinson has no Hall of Famers on his list.
The top ten players in terms of similarity scores on Lindstrom’s and Collins’ lists all have scores higher than 875.
Edit Comment Cancel
Collin Hager - The Roundtable 9 months ago
T, for the record, I agree with you. As we talked about, Santo is a tough call. Unfortunately, we only have a few pieces to compare with Santo, and those are what we went with.
Murphy is a solid player, but also a borderline hall of famer in himself. Comparisons and similarity scores are all we have, and are not exactly the best ways to look at players, as you've pointed out. Santo had an incredibly consistent career, but was never dominant over any set period, like Jim Rice for example. Not saying Rice belongs, but Rice dominated for a stretch. So did Sandy Koufax.
There is something to be said for consistency, but, in our opinion, it doesn't make for a Hall of Fame player.
Edit Comment Cancel
t k 9 months ago
The principal flaw in using similarity scores is that they give equal weight to both counting and rate stats across time regardless of era. See http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/similarity.shtml. Thus, a .300 career batting average for a player that played in the late '20s and early '30s is weighted the same as a career batting average from a player that played in the '60s, when league batting statistics were much lower, due to a variety of factors. See James, 2001 Historical Baseball Abstract p. 618 (the Travis Jackson comment).
Edit Comment Cancel
Collin Hager - The Roundtable 9 months ago
T, for the record, I agree with you. As we talked about, Santo is a tough call. Unfortunately, we only have a few pieces to compare with Santo, and those are what we went with.
Murphy is a solid player, but also a borderline hall of famer in himself. Comparisons and similarity scores are all we have, and are not exactly the best ways to look at players, as you've pointed out. Santo had an incredibly consistent career, but was never dominant over any set period, like Jim Rice for example. Not saying Rice belongs, but Rice dominated for a stretch. So did Sandy Koufax.
There is something to be said for consistency, but, in our opinion, it doesn't make for a Hall of Fame player.
Edit Comment Cancel
t k 9 months ago
“Santo had an incredibly consistent career, but was never dominant over any set period, like Jim Rice for example.”
Perhaps we have different definitions of “dominance”, but I disagree with this statement. Ron Santo’s best years were very good indeed. His top ten years in OPS+ : 164 (1964), 161 (1966), 153 (1967), 146 (1965), 139 (1972), 131 (1969), 128 (1963), 126 (1968), 121 (1961), 115 (1970). He finished in the top ten in the NL in slugging percentage five times. He finished in the top ten in the NL in OBP eight times. From 1964 through 1967 he was in the top ten in the NL in both categories every year, and in addition was in the top ten in the NL in OPS, total bases, home runs and rbi. He was among the league leaders in those categories in other years as well. He led the NL in walks 4 times and in OBP twice . He had more than 30 win shares every year from 1964 through 1967. In each of those four years he won the gold glove at third. During that period, he was probably within the top ten or top five players in the National League every year. How is that not “dominant”?
Santo’s raw numbers suffer by comparison in the eyes of some because of the dilutive effect of the time in which he played. Santo’s best years coincided precisely with an era of pitching dominance in part created by rules changes. The period from 1963 through 1968 featured elevated mounds and larger strike zones that deflated offense in the majors.
It is a serious misconception to describe Santo as a “borderline” candidate. Santo would be in the top half of all third basemen in the Hall and would easily be in the top half of all players in the Hall. It is a strange world indeed were his accomplishments could be described as “borderline.” The Bill James quote I posted earlier from the Baseball Abstract I think refutes this line of thinking quite effectively.
In your original argument, you said “If he played a different position, this one is easy. At third base, much tougher.” I don’t understand this at all. He’s better than half of the third basemen currently in the Hall of Fame. There are fewer third basemen in the Hall of Fame than there are at any other position. James in 2000 rated him as the 6th best third baseman in the history of baseball (and as one of the top 100 players of all time). Elsewhere in the article, when discussing Torre, you say “We're not advocates of putting in players because someone else was in.” That’s all well and good, and makes sense when you’re talking about comparing a candidate to one of the weaker members of the hall, but it does not make sense if the player you are talking about is better than half of the players in the Hall at his position and better than fully half of the current Hall members. Or are you saying that the Hall of Fame should kick out half of its current members? If you’re one of the top six third basemen of all time, you should go in.
Edit Comment Cancel
t k 9 months ago
“Santo had an incredibly consistent career, but was never dominant over any set period, like Jim Rice for example.”
Perhaps we have different definitions of “dominance”, but I disagree with this statement. Ron Santo’s best years were very good indeed. His top ten years in OPS+ : 164 (1964), 161 (1966), 153 (1967), 146 (1965), 139 (1972), 131 (1969), 128 (1963), 126 (1968), 121 (1961), 115 (1970). He finished in the top ten in the NL in slugging percentage five times. He finished in the top ten in the NL in OBP eight times. From 1964 through 1967 he was in the top ten in the NL in both categories every year, and in addition was in the top ten in the NL in OPS, total bases, home runs and rbi. He was among the league leaders in those categories in other years as well. He led the NL in walks 4 times and in OBP twice . He had more than 30 win shares every year from 1964 through 1967. In each of those four years he won the gold glove at third. During that period, he was probably within the top ten or top five players in the National League every year. How is that not “dominant”?
Santo’s raw numbers suffer by comparison in the eyes of some because of the dilutive effect of the time in which he played. Santo’s best years coincided precisely with an era of pitching dominance in part created by rules changes. The period from 1963 through 1968 featured elevated mounds and larger strike zones that deflated offense in the majors.
It is a serious misconception to describe Santo as a “borderline” candidate. Santo would be in the top half of all third basemen in the Hall and would easily be in the top half of all players in the Hall. It is a strange world indeed were his accomplishments could be described as “borderline.” The Bill James quote I posted earlier from the Baseball Abstract I think refutes this line of thinking quite effectively.
In your original argument, you said “If he played a different position, this one is easy. At third base, much tougher.” I don’t understand this at all. He’s better than half of the third basemen currently in the Hall of Fame. There are fewer third basemen in the Hall of Fame than there are at any other position. James in 2000 rated him as the 6th best third baseman in the history of baseball (and as one of the top 100 players of all time). Elsewhere in the article, when discussing Torre, you say “We're not advocates of putting in players because someone else was in.” That’s all well and good, and makes sense when you’re talking about comparing a candidate to one of the weaker members of the hall, but it does not make sense if the player you are talking about is better than half of the players in the Hall at his position and better than fully half of the current Hall members. Or are you saying that the Hall of Fame should kick out half of its current members? If you’re one of the top six third basemen of all time, you should go in.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lou Santoro Jr 7 months ago
Dismissing Dick Allen without discussion is a mortal sin and something only an idiot would do. This is the Veterans Committee and they are on the ballot for a reason. Dick was as good a player there was in baseball from 1964 thru 1974 and was clearly a dominant factor especially when you get into the OPS and all those things. A 7 time all-star excluding his first year when as a rookie, you got no recognition. So, in reality he was an All-Star in 8 of his 10 dominant years and in one of the years he didnt get elected was 1971 when Walter Alston had him at 3 different positions. According to Gene Mauch, Allen was looked at in awe by every player in the league. Longevity is the only decent drawback against Dick and lets acknowledge he played hurt. Frank Thomas hit him with a bat on the shoulder early in 1965 when Dick Allen was leading the league in hitting. He hurt his rotator cuff in 1966 & had his hand slashed in 1967, yet he overcame all of those things to be an MVP & @ time 2 Home Run Leader just missing the Triple Crown in 1974. Ron Santo, Gil Hodges, Joe Torre couldnt hold a candle to Dick Allen. Dick Allen was as good a player to ever play, notwithstanding his lack of longevity and to hold that against him would be a travesty.
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.