For: Nine time all-star, great fielder (5 gold gloves), great
on-base percentage (led the league twice in OBP and in walks 4 times), hit 25+ HRs for 8 consecutive years.
Against: Never won a World Series, vital stats (.277 average, 342 HRs, 1,331 RBI) are rather unremarkable for HOF status, does not rank in the top 50 all-time in any offensive category.
Sorry, nice player but not HOF material.
2007-07-14 13:06:20
·
answer #1
·
answered by Mitchell . 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
Where to begin? Anyone who watched the man play remembers him. In the time that he played there was Brooks Robinson in the AL (hall member) and in the NL there was 'the NL's Brooks Robinson', Ron Santo. There really were no other third basemen at the time who compared to the two. Writers have fallen in love with big numbers and have come to regard them as the only criteria that matter in the vote. But the Hall is about who was great, not who played long enough to make fans worry about heart attacks. Santo was more than a gamer. He was great. If he isn't a hall of famer, then neither were other short-career members like Sandy Koufax, Jackie Robinson, or Roy Campanella.
2007-07-14 23:32:03
·
answer #2
·
answered by Sarrafzedehkhoee 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
its definately a grt issue that many have sided on 1 way or the other. im a cub fan, BIG TIME, & so it prbably makes it easier 4 me 2 appreciate what he did & has done 4 our club. he never went 2 a world series, but so what? neither did many HOFers. & his avg.? .277. well, how abt this: johnny bench:.276 career avg., willie stargell: .282 career avg., ernie banks: .274 career avg. many plyrs had lower, abt the same, or only a little bit higher of a career avg. than santo did. he should go in my mind. 5 gold gloves, 2,254 career hits, 342 career homers, 1331 career ribies, 1108 walks, & 1,138 career runs scored. those r not records, i no. but they r good enuff stats 4 the HOF.
2007-07-14 21:52:57
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Position matters; Santo played 3B, and played it very well. He was also the dominant hitter at that position for most of his career. His contemporary peer group includes Brooks Robinson (HOFer) and Ken Boyer (not, but a decent candidate), and Santo was a better hitter than either of them; if either had any advantage on defense, Santo more than took it away with his bat.
I don't understand how the writers, and now the veterans (which is clearly a somewhat confused electorate), can NOT see how this man merits the honor of the Hall.
2007-07-14 19:19:28
·
answer #4
·
answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7
·
4⤊
2⤋
Only a deaf person can say Santo is a good broadcaster! He is awful. Maybe if he would do homework...
He does not belong. That is why he is not in. Most think he keeps getting passed up by the hall. That is not true. He was passed over for years, and now the veterans committee is who is not passing him in. Why should they. He had 20 years to get in, but was told he was not good enough. He should just get over it.
2007-07-14 22:07:04
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
Ron Santo is does belong in the hall of fame because he's a great broadcaster. if u don't agree with me big deal Ron Santo is an ex-cubs player so what.
2007-07-14 19:25:51
·
answer #6
·
answered by jeangray26 5
·
0⤊
4⤋
He should be in the HOF for one simple reason. His numbers compare very favorably to other 3rd basemen who are already in. It isn't fair to exclude him simply because he missed out on post-season glory.
2007-07-14 18:50:39
·
answer #7
·
answered by Rckets 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
He's not...
2007-07-14 18:49:03
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋