i never saw him play,dont know how his numbers compare to other guys in the hall at his position.ive heard his numbers arent to bad.
2007-02-27 09:40:38 · 5 answers · asked by mike hunt 4 in Sports ➔ Baseball
If I had a vote I would have to say yes. Ron Santo was an excellent all around player.
Brooks Robinson - 23 seasons
BA-267 OBP-322 SLG-401 H-2848 HR-268
Defense - FLD%-.971 - Range Factor - 3.10
Ron Santo - 15 seasons
BA-277 OBP-362 SLG-464 H-2254 HR-342
Defense - FLD%-.954 Range Factor - 3.07
Longevity should & does count for something & Robinson had almost 600 more hits, but in every other offensive catergory Santo looks very good. You have to give the nod on defense to Robinson because of the FLD% .971 is great for a 3B - .954 is only average, but a range factor over 3 is excellent...
To me the telling factor is not that Robinson was a little better, he was, the telling factor is, that Santo was that close to what most consider one of the greatest all around 3B of all time.
2007-02-27 22:00:58 · answer #1 · answered by C_F_45 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Santo was the best third baseman in the NL during the 60's. With a .277 lifetime BA, 342 HR, and 1331 RBIS, those are excellent numbers for the most under represented position in the HOF. Also coupled with the fact he was a diabetic which helped to cut his career short deprived him of longevity numbers. The things I thinnk that hurt Santo the most was the Cubs never was a great team in his stay, There were already 3 HOF from that team, (Banks, Williams,Jenkins), and Mike Schmidt was looking like the new standard for 3rd baseman ( which he was), Plus the era of people with 400 and 500 roundtrippers were beginning to set new standards for induction. Santo should be in the HOF and it sounds like a gliche in the new Veterens voting selection has prevented him (and Buck Oneill and Gil Hodges) from being selected.
2007-03-01 18:26:09 · answer #2 · answered by allenmontana 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A LOT of knowledgeable people argue that his stats are better than a lot of third baseman who are in. He was also an excellent fielder. They have a point.
There are many arguments that can be made the other way though. His stats were greatly inflated by playing in Wrigley field, he never played in a world series, and many said he was not a "clutch" player.
Ultimately, I guess it depends on how you define a hall of famer, not a decision most of us are privileged to make. If I WERE however, there are others I would put in first.
2007-02-27 10:49:06 · answer #3 · answered by clueless_nerd 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ronnie got screwed again. he was a great great defensive 3rd basemen. wrigley is one of the hardest places to field because of the bumps in the field and the high grass. yet he won mutiple gold gloves. when ron retired i think he was 3rd all time for homers for a third basemen. since, other 3rd basemen have hit more and pushed him down the list, but he was still a great hitter. i don't think ron's health is well enough to grant him 4 more years on this earth. but hopefully he holds up and be elected in either of the next to veteran's ballots in 09 and 11. he's so close.
2007-02-27 11:51:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Apparently it's a MLB rule not to let a Cub in
2007-02-27 09:53:43 · answer #5 · answered by sthorsen919 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋