Replies

Ron Santo? On his numbers alone, he’s not a HOFer. Not even close. He got a sympathy vote.

Santo’s number one comparable on Baseball Refernece is Dale Murphy. His number two is Gary Gaetti. I happen to like both of those players a lot. But they are not HOF material, and certainly not “best to ever play a position” material.

Bill James, who knows baseball a lot better than you, says otherwise. So does the fact that Santo played mostly in a pitcher's era and still managed a higher lifetime batting average than Mike Schmidt. So does his string of consecutive golden gloves, all-star game appearances and offensive category leadership. We don't even have to get into his service to the game after his playing days are over to qualify him as one of the best to every play the game. Certainly not in the top 5, 10 or even 50. But certainly in the middle of the pack of all Hall of Famers.

Comparing his offensive statistics to Dale Murphy or Gary Gaetti is about as meaningful as claiming that the 1930 Philadelphia Phillies was a way better hitting team than the 1906 Chicago Cubs. It is actually true. The Phillies hit .315 as a team, but finished dead last with a 52-102 record. The Cubs finished with a 116-36 record but hit only .262 as a team. As far as I know, that team winning percentage has never been broken. Any only the great New York Yankees teams of 1927 (110-44) and 1998 (114-48) have even come close.

The same quarter century time lapse separated these teams and the prime playing days of Santo and your examples. Your arguments make about as much sense as claiming that the 1906 Chicago Cubs team was NOT one of the best to ever take the field since the last place 1930 Phillies had a better team batting average.

OTOH, comparing his offensive statistics to Brooks Robinson would be fairly relevant since they both played in the same era.