Ron Santo (1940-2010), RIP
Posted by Sean Forman on December 3, 2010
Baseball lost a Hall of Famer (at least he is in my book) and a lifelong Cub yesterday. Our condolences to his family and to his fans. B-R Player Page
Posted by Sean Forman on December 3, 2010
Baseball lost a Hall of Famer (at least he is in my book) and a lifelong Cub yesterday. Our condolences to his family and to his fans. B-R Player Page
December 4th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
One problem with setting fixed arbitrary cut-off lines is that eventually you get bad results. "In my book, a batter has to have a minimum 110 to even be considered, unless there are obvious fielding reasons to be selected." Well, "obvious fielding reasons" can be an escape route, but it combines a fixed line that excludes 109 Bill Dahlen with subjectivity that opens the door to anyone else.
Of the 18 shortstops in the Hall, 10 have OPS+ below 110. Okay, some of them are borderline one way or another. But Ozzie Smith compiled an 87 OPS+. On what basis do we cut Dahlen off for 1 point and usher Ozzie (who definitely belongs) in despite his missing this misguided cut by 23?
December 4th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
John Q at #64
"I didn't say Bando played in Wrigley? You're confusing Bando with Santo.
I said Bando played in two pitchers' parks. He played in Oakland and Milwaukee. "
What was I thinking/reading? Somehow after reading your post, I thought it said Santo!! My Bad! I must have tired from reading all the posts!
Of course you are right, BANDO did play in pitchers' parks.
December 4th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
In post 49, I set out four career offensive milestones for a player's age 33 season: 325 doubles, 300 homers, 3200 times on base, OPS+ 125 or above.
Early in 2012, there should be 10 players who will have done that: Hank Aaron, Barry Bonds, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Mel Ott, Albert Pujols, Frank Robinson, Alex Rodriguez, Babe Ruth, and Ron Santo. Albert is 313 xob short.
I acknowledge that Mike Schmidt and George Brett had greater careers at 3b. Maybe Eddie Mathews and Brooksie, Frank Baker, Jimmy Collins. I acknowledge that on the list of 10 (above), Ron Santo ranks 10th. 10th all-time, of everybody.
Ahead of Ted Williams, Stan Musial, Willie Mays, Al Kaline, Schmidt, Brett, Mathews. Why? One answer is to start making qualifications. World War Two. The Korean War. The effect of a congenital foot condition that limited playing time. Going to college. A skill set that didn't produce as many doubles (Mathews) or homers (Brett). Losing playing time to strikes or frequent nagging injury. Making such qualifications is reasonable to do.
IF Ron Santo's career counting numbers don't seem large enough to you, ask if recognizing a qualification for his career isn't reasonable to do as well.
December 4th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Quick question in regards to John Autin's posts at #87 and #89.
Do you think that Santo's diabetes and Wrigley's day game schedule (as opposed to the mixed day/night schedule on the road) contributed to his larger home/away splits than other Cub's of his time period?
December 4th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
@86 Clarkaroo,
That's an interesting thought, if I have time I'll look up the AL/NL splits. I was kind of surprised to find Wade Boggs, but when you think of it he was a dominant player and extremely durable during the 80's.
George Brett missed a lot of time because of injury. He only had one 3 year stretch, ('75-77) where he had 600+ plate appearances per year. By comparison Santo had an 11 year stretch (1961-1971) where he had 600+ PA each year. Brett missed time in '78, '80, '83, '84, '86, '87, & '89. And then he missed time because of the strike in '81. So Brett doesn't compare as well to Santo in short increments like 3 year span or 5year span or even 6year span, they're about even in 10, 12 year span but Brett does much better in career value
Brett is kind of odd player in that he missed time when he was young and didn't miss much time when he aged, (1990-1993). He also had the benefit of being an institution in KC so he was able to play at DH when he was past his prime.
Essentially Santo is George Brett in career value, had George Brett retired after the 1986 season.
December 4th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Baseball is life, and life is baseball.
It's a long season, you don't always feel your best, but the funny thing is that on your "good days" you might lose, and when you're not feeling so good you might win.
Over the course of a season, there are lots of ups and downs, good streaks and bad streaks, and for the most part you have time to make up for your mistakes. But when your season ends is not necessarily up to you, since you're playing on a team and it takes a team effort to extend the season into the playoffs, and if you're among the fortunate few, the World Series.
If you're among the fortunate ones who have a team of doctors, therapists, surgeons, dieticians and the like to help you deal with a debilitating health condition, your life gets extended beyond what it otherwise would have been without that team. Ron Santo frequently acknowledged how his life is a perfect example of this.
In the end you don't always receive what you deserve, but that's not the point.
The point is to play and live as hard as you can, put as much into the game and your life as possible, and waste no time worrying about what you're going to get out of it. Nobody played the game, nobody lived life, as hard and totally and completely as Ron Santo.
Without baseball, Ron's life would have been much shorter, and he knew that and spoke of it countless times.
Too many athletes don't know how to handle "life after baseball."
For the fortunate few like Ron, there's no before-after: baseball is life, and life is baseball.
I waste no more time worrying about whether he will make the Hall of Fame, because the Baseball Writers Association of America is not worth all that emotional effort.
Besides, the vote has been taken out of their hands, and I'm not talking about the Veterans' committee. Ron Santo is now in a better place than anything the sportswriters could elect him to.
And I am sure that where Ronnie is now, they won't allow those sportswriters in. . . . . .
December 4th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
David in Toledo @ 103 & @49
300 homers, 325 doubles, 3200 on base, OPS of 125; only 9 All-Timers, plus Santo. Cherry-picked or not, these are core numbers for batting production. Thanks for telling again, I missed it the first time, my bad. High company indeed. Sabremetrics show Santo is much better than he looked in the 60's.
Ron Santo might be the best camouflaged big hitter in baseball. Or second to to Sal Bando. What kind of career would Ron Bando have, or Sal Santo? Hmm... Ron led the league in walks while batting clean-up, about 5-6 years in a row.
I didn't know about Ron Santos diabetes until recently. I don't have the awful disease but aware of what it does: diminish vision, and tissues of hands and feet are injured by pressure and hard impact and are slow to heal. Diabetes would be THE Anti-Ballplayer Disease. Santo was always in the line-up and it must have dragged him down some. I feel certain the acceleration of injuries due to his illness slammed the door on Ron's career way in advance of the normal progression for a player of his stats line.
His imaginary projected stat lines, given normal health, would report big hitting seasons 1970-75 and retirement in '77 or '78. This is based on thought lines similar to Bill James estimating the seasons Minnie Minosa could have with a rookie year of age 21 instead of age 29.
We think we see a full hitting career by looking at Ron's illusorily low 1960s stats and his decline years in the early '70s, but it tricks us into seeing less than is really evident. This is information learned late and part of how baseball opinions move player's rankings up and down relative to peers and other baseball generations. Santo is moving up. Thanks for letting me talk, guys. I'm very impressed by your manners and quality of insights.
Clark
December 4th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
While considering Ron Santo's legacy, and whether he should be part of the Baseball Hall of Fame as we know it, is it really necessary to act like children and talk about how he is in "a better place"? This kind of nonsense is embarassing to read.
As for the Hall of Fame, I don't think he was ever a clear selection. He was certainly a fine player, but guys with numbers like Santo's haven't tended to be elected to the Hall of Fame. Many people have been comparing him to the other third basemen in the Hall of Fame, but I think that is kind of beside the point. He was not up at bat as a third baseman, but as a hitter, and his offensive numbers, while good, are not superior to those of many contemporaries who did not gain election, but who happened to play other positions. Norm Cash, for example, played about one less season than Santo, and has an OPS+ that is 139 compared to Santo's 125. Bobby Grich played a great second base, and had a higher career WAR than Santo, and never made it past the first HOF ballot. The same could be said for Lou Whitaker.
There are many in the Hall of Fame that Santo was far better than, and the Hall of Fame would not suffer from his induction in any way. Let's not get carried away, though, into believing that Santo was some sort of first tier Hall of Famer who is reasonably thought of as a contender for the top third basemen of all time, or even in the National League.
December 4th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Santo did seem to benefit alot from Wrigley. But what if we tried to estimate only his value in road games? Doing a quick calculation to find his road OBP & SLG from 1960-73, I got .346 & .413. Does not sound that great. But in his time, it was pretty valuable. Here is the relationship from regression analysis between runs per game and OBP & SLG:
R/G =16.55*OBP + 10.56*SLG - 5.15
A team with an OBP of .342 and an SLG of .413 would score 4.93 R/G. The league average in those years was about 4.06. That would give us a Pythagorean pct of .596. Pretty darn good.
Now let's raise his OBP and SLG by about 4% (the typical home field advantage in the NL in those years using Retrosheet). That gives us .360 & .430. That gives us 5.35 runs per game and Pythag pct of .633.
Now both of those are higher than what you might see at the Lee Sinins Complete Baseball Encyclopedia since that uses runs created to calculate Pyth. But I think it shows that even if you only look at his road hitting, he still looks pretty good.
I also ran a regression with winning pct being the dependent variable and runs per game and opponents runs per game being the independent variables. Here is the equation
Pct = .515 + .111*RG - .114*ORG
If a team scored 4.93 runs per game and allowed 4.06 per game, they would have a .596 pct. That is how good Santo was just in road games.
December 4th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
John Q and Phil, thanks for saying. Looking forward to the AL/NL six-year-stat columns next to the combined line. Predict we'll see a lot of Lajoi, Wagner, Collins, Baker, Cobb, Hornsby, Ruth, DiMaggio, Musial, Mantle and Mays. Who in the AL in the 70s? Who in the NL in the 80s? Who in the AL in the last 20 years? This tool can answer lots of questions for sorting the best of the best.
For Santo: A six-year running slice as the best in baseball AND a top-ten all-time for doubles, homers and OPS. Santo was much better than we realized, then he stopped quite suddenly.
Barry Bonds must have been uniquely constituted to be helped by PEDs more than any other player was helped. In a way this shows his greatness: Barry was better without them and then even more better with PEDs. An individual outlier. Something within me recoils from the idea that Bonds could be more singular in his era than Babe Ruth in his. Just doesn't seem right or possible. What a long string of Bonds on your list, John Q.
December 4th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
REPLIES TO
CLARKAROO: In Ron's playing days, diabetes was one of those debilitating things where you were told what you shouldn't do, and there were only "certain exertions" you were limited to, team sports being one of the things that were NOT on the approved list.
Ron's condition was not publicly known until later on in his career because he didn't want people feeling sorry for him, and it came as a shock to most people. Only his teammates and family/close friends knew.
So you need not "adjust" Ron's stats to wonder "what if he didn't have diabetes."
What might have been is irrelevant.
You need to look at Ron's stats and wonder "HOLY COW! THIS GUY HAD DIABETES? WHY ISN'T HE IN THE HALL OF FAME???"
December 4th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
REPLY TO MR. BRYAN: I find nothing childish in a reference to Ron being in a better place. I place my faith in a higher power than the BBWAA, and I am i no way embarrassed to make that point.
This is not a religious polemic, it is merely my way of saying that that are things far more important than sportswriters' opinions or the HOF.
And there are far more important standards than statistics.
Character issues keep baseball's all-time hits leader from being in the HOF.
So why is is that with Ron Santo, only stats are used to argue against him and character issues are deemed irrelevant?
December 4th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Hi Bryan and Cyril,
The diabetes-affected actual career of Ron Santo places him in serious contention for second or third place all-time 3B in the National League. We haven't scrutinized Eddie Mathews' numbers and place in the game like we have Brett's and Santo's. We know Mike Schmidt is a quantum ring above all other third sackers. Being second or third all-time at your position in Schmidt's league is germane to HOF issues.
Santo is ahead of the pack of 3B behind him. Many examples reflect like Whitaker, Grich and Cash, who are not ahead of their HOF packs. They are somewhere in the front of their packs, not in front of the pack. Maybe it's just not right for middle infielders to be better hitters than hot cornermen, but your evidence and mine shows that this is the case.
I disagree that Santo was not up to bat as a third baseman. There are physical skillsets that do connect batting with fielding position. Because of this batting level peculiar to 3B position, Ron Santo can be considered 'first-tier' HOF. No, nor demi-god, legendary, or all-time great, but yes, an all-time first tier 'Small Hall' type player. And not because of emotion over his death this week either. David @103 puts a bright light on Santo.
Thanks, Mr Bryan, I appreciate getting to respond to your view in the posts. Clark
December 4th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
REPLY TO CLARKAROO post 110:
What "six year slice" are you talking about Ron Santo?
December 4th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
RIP Ron. When I was a kid I looked forward to the NBC game of the week in the late 60s and early 70s. If the Giants were on it was great but also if the Cubs were on that was also great. The Giants have always been my team and It still has not sunk in that they won it all. The Cubs were my second fav team and as long as they were not playing the Giants I was pulling for them. Anyway Ron Santo was a fav of mine along with Ernie and Billy. I looked forward to seeing that group of hitters when they came up. Three HOFs, yes THREE but one of them is still yet to be elected. Now that Ronnie is gone those bafoons who vote will no doubt put him in now. Great timing HOF vets guys. I have XM radio and was always looking for the Cubs game so I could hear Ron with his...ah..."Ronisms" (just made that one up) and laugh along with him. Anyway, I know he is in a better place now and feeling no pain. RIP Ronnie. Now it's the Cubs turn to win it all!!!
December 4th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
Phil H@111,
WOW! That's Exactly where I am! Thanks Phil!
I learned so much about Ron Santo from this thread and The Santo HOF thread- a bright light flashed on inside me, like when I was reading Bill James Baseball Abstracts in '83 and '84. All of a sudden I realized that Santo's production was a lot bigger than I thought it was. Then I saw how Ron's career stat timeline is too short for a player who bats at his high level. Kind of like Mantle, he loses on career value. But what he actually did is enough to score him second or third all-time in his league.
I am just all-agoggle from looking at Ron Santo. Add in the what-if mind games of production in other era contexts and if he'd had a normally long career suitable to his ability, and what those years would look like in the stat lines... well, this is fun to me. A lot of fun.
I'll stop writing now. Pretty sure I've mined all my insight by now. Whew.
Clark
December 4th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
@Johnny Twisto 100/David 101 ... I said that OPS+ below 100 is OK if guy is primarily a fielder. Pre-1900, can you make a "primarily a fielder" argument?
December 4th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
He was not up at bat as a third baseman, but as a hitter
And he didn't play the field as a cleanup hitter, but as a third baseman.
December 4th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
I said that OPS+ below 100 is OK if guy is primarily a fielder. Pre-1900, can you make a "primarily a fielder" argument?
What does it mean to be primarily a fielder? He played the field and took his turn at bat like everyone else. If you mean he got most of his value from fielding, that's not really the right way to look at it, since the worse a hitter is, the more likely that most of his value comes from fielding. Dahlen played over 2100 games at shortstop, which is a pretty good case that he had a lot of fielding value. He was a great hitter during the one-league majors of the 1890s. And my understanding is that his defensive rep was quite good.
I don't understand what your pre-1900 comment means.
December 4th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Reply to Phil H @114. 1964 thru '69.
Specifically based on the six-year WAR by John Q@82 84; plus @61
But also from David in Toledo @49 &103.
These are most of my favorite posts:
13 22 35 37 39 40 48 52* 61* 62 71 74 78 79 80 82* 84* 88 93 103-107 111 113
December 4th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Clarkaroo, I went back to the end of WW2 for the 6 year WAR spans starting with 1946-1951 and going to the start of the DH/Free Agency era in 1973.
National League WAR leaders 6 year span:
'46-51-Musial-49.8
'47-52-Musial-47.7
'48-53-Musial-50.5
'49-54-J. Robinson-46.9
'50-55-Musial-44
'51-56-Musial-43.3
'52-57-Snider-43.3
'53-58-Mays-45.2
'54-59-Mays-52.7
'55-60-Mays-52.2
'56-61-Mays-52.3
'57-62-Mays-56.1
'58-63-Mays-57.8
'59-64-Mays-57.6
'60-65-Mays-61.1
'61-66-Mays-60.1
'62-67-Mays-55.0
'63-68-Mays-51.0
'64-69-SANTO-45.7
'65-70-SANTO-42.0
'66-71-Clemente-42.3
'67-72-Clemente-39.4
'68-73-Rose-35.9
'69-74-Morgan-41.8
'70-75-Morgan-49.6
'71-76-Morgan-56.2
'72-77-Morgan-57.2
'73-78-Morgan-48.7
Santo leads another 6 years span in the NL, 1965-1970.
Realistically Mays could have won 9-10 MVP awards, Musial about 5-6, Morgan 4-5.
December 4th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
I wonder how many years in a row Mantle lead the American League? My guess is probably from '52 to '62 or maybe even '64? The greatest players ever are absurdly unbelievable.
If sabermetrics were around Mantle likely would have won in '60 and '61, which, without checking, he lost by I think 3 and 4 votes.
December 4th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Clarkaroo, here's the AL from 1946-1974:
'46-51-T. Williams-51.1
'47-52-T. Williams-39.6
'48-53-T. Williams-31.5
'49-54-L. Doby-33.1
'50-55-L. Doby-32.9
'51-56-Mantle-43.7
'52-57-Mantle-54.6
'53-58-Mantle-54.6
'54-59-Mantle-57.8
'55-60-Mantle-57.5
'56-61-Mantle-59.9
'57-62-Mantle-54.1
'58-63-Mantle-44.9
'59-64-Mantle-40.8
'60-65-Mantle-36.7
'61-66-Mantle-33.7
'64-67-Yaz-34.0
'65-70-Yaz-44.7
'66-71-Yaz-44.3
'67-72-Yaz-42.8
'68-73-R. Jackson-37.1
'69-74-R. Jackson & S. Bando-38.9
'70-75-R. Jackson-35.7
'71-76-R. Jackson-38.3
'72-77-R. Carew-44.1
'73-78-R. Carew-44.2
'74-79-R. Carew-40.0
The AL was a much weaker league during the time period mainly because they were very slow to integrate. Mantle could have legitimately won 9-10 MVP awards. Bando co-led in '69-74, coincidently another 3b. He's the only non HOF other than Santo to make either list.
December 4th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
Clarkaroo, here's the NL since 1973:
'74-79-Schmidt-49.2
'75-80-Schmidt-47.8
'76-81-Schmidt-48.4
'77-82-Schmidt-47.8
'78-83-Schmidt-45.9
'79-84-Schmidt-45.9
'80-85-Schmidt-43.8
'81-86-Schmidt-41.3
'82-87-Schmidt-39.3
'83-88-Raines-34.0
'84-89-O. Smith-34.3
'85-90-O. Smith-32.7
'86-91-Bonds-40.2
'87-92-Bonds-47.3
'88-93-Bonds-52.5
'89-94-Bonds-52.7
'90-95-Bonds-52.3
'91-96-Bonds-53.4
'92-97-Bonds-53.9
'93-98-Bonds-53.2
'94-99-Bonds-46.6
'95-00-Bonds-48.9
'96-01-Bonds-54.1
'97-02-Bonds-55.5
'98-03-Bonds-57.0
'99-04-Bonds-60.1
'00-05-Bonds-56.5
'01-06-Bonds-52.4
'02-07-Pujols-50.9
'03-08-Pujols-54.7
'04-09-Pujols-53.0
'05-10-Pujols-50.8
Raines is the only non HOF on this list. It's interesting, Raines missed a month because of collusion in 1987, he was pretty close to Ozzie in the '84-89 list. Schmidt could have won 5-6 MVP's, Bonds about 11-12
December 4th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Clarkaroo, Here's the AL since 1974:
'75-80-Brett-44.1
'76-81-Brett-41.6
'77-82-Brett-39.4
'78-83-Yount-37.7
'79-84-Yount-39.5
'80-85-Henderson-46.7
'81-86-Henderson-43.7
'82-87-Boggs-43.6
'83-88-Boggs-48.3
'84-89-Boggs-48.9
'85-90-Boggs-45.9
'86-91-Boggs-43.4
'87-92-Henderson-40.5
'88-93-Henderson-40.7
'89-94-Henderson-37.8
'90-95-F. Thomas-36.2
'91-96-Griffey jr.-41.0
'92-97-Griffey jr.-43.1
'93-98-Griffey jr.-43.8
'94-99-Griffey jr.-40.1
'95-00-ARod-37.5
'96-01-ARod-45.8
'97-02-ARod-44.6
'98-03-ARod-47.5
'99-04-ARod-45.8
'00-05-ARod-49.5
'01-06-ARod-42.7
'02-07-ARod-44.6
'03-08-ARod-41.8
'04-09-ARod-38.0
'05-10-Mauer-37.2
The 80's-00's lists get kind of tricky because players switch leagues much more frequently. Henderson moved around a lot. Griffey moved to the NL. There was a time in '95-00 that the Mariners had the top 3, even with Griffey only playing in the AL until '99: A-Rod, Edgar and Griffey.
Henderson had an odd bookend to Boggs.
Mauer has been an overlooked superstar. He probably deserved 3 MVP awards. A-Rod could have won 6-7 MVP awards.
December 4th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
John Q, Thank you, for so much useful information.
To sum up, only 3 eligible players led their league in 6-year WAR and aren't in the Hall.
They are Sal Bando (who tied for the lead once), Tim Raines, and Ron Santo (who did it twice). Thanks for the additional evidence.
December 4th, 2010 at 10:52 pm
@Johnny Twisto 119 ... Primarily a fielder isn't clear to you? Ernie Banks as a shortstop was primarily a hitter, Ozzie Smith primarily a fielder. My pre-1900 comment is that with both gloves and fields even more primitive back then than, say 1900-1920, and other factors, I just don't see how we can make as precise a judgment on someone from that era as a fielder.
December 4th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
A couple of other thoughts.
One, re Dahlen as an "example." There's always going to be someone who has the best WAR, win shares, ERA+, OPS+ or whatever not to make the HOF. Sometimes, that will be pretty high. For instance, even without the steroid cloud, I wouldn't vote McGwire into the HOF even though, as said before, I'm a Cards fan. And, I'll venture the guess that more than 25 percent of BBWAA might feel the same.
Therefore, we'd have the high number of 583 homers being the highest HR total for a non-HOFer. And, boosters using that as a plea to vote in Big Mac.
===
Second, in the last 2-3 years, Santo has moved up in my mind, closer to that "invisible border." When some people, like (I think) Rob Neyer at ESPN wonder how someone can move up 5 or 10 percentage points in voting 3-4 yeas in a row, this is exactly how -- through second and even third thoughts.
December 4th, 2010 at 11:37 pm
Yes, A-Rod in the top tier, for the semi-rhetorical question. He'll wind up playing more games at 3B than SS, and he'll go in the HOF with a Yankee hat. So, already now, before the games played crossover, in discussing his career, we should think of him as a 3B.
Defensively, he's below average at 3B, tis true.
His overall offensive numbers?
Even giving him a steroid haircut, I put him at 2500 hits, 500 HRs, 400 doubles, OPS+ 135.
December 5th, 2010 at 12:57 am
Primarily a fielder isn't clear to you?
No.
My pre-1900 comment is that with both gloves and fields even more primitive back then than, say 1900-1920, and other factors, I just don't see how we can make as precise a judgment on someone from that era as a fielder.
We can't make a precise judgement. Does that mean we ignore every pre-1900 player?
December 5th, 2010 at 2:17 am
Schmidt is better than Mathews but not dramatically, they are not very different players in career value. Absent the valid PED considerations, I can see no argument that are valid to keep Big Mac out. All those HRs & walks gave him HOF career value, & certainly plenty of peak value.
By the way: whether it is WAR or Wins Shares-& I buy the excellent explanation above of why the former is better-It should be routine to figure in peak value to the equation. Does anyone here think that a basic, indispensable guide to greatness is not a few years of dominance? John Q averaging career & best & year WAR is a good system-I might average that with best 3, &/or even make it peak 60% of the value, but no question peak is at least equally important.
It is hard to find a rationale to keep Santo out of the Hall. His peak value was quite high, & he had enough career value even with the shortened career to be obviously deserving. As i have asked before though I wonder where he ranks with other War & WARP systems. There is MUCH variance in them, & this should be a big concern to any of us who believe it is a useful stat.
December 5th, 2010 at 8:19 am
It's a cliche, but part of my childhood died with Ron Santo's passing. How well I remember the Santo v Brooks Robinson arguments with my best friend- I was the Santo proponent (and yes I think they were both terrific).
December 5th, 2010 at 10:21 am
Well, keeping in mind that, for great players with long careers, rWAR (that is, Rally WAR, which is what is presented on this site) /tends/ to be slightly lower than fWAR (that is, Fangraphs WAR), let's look at the numbers. I will also include Baseball Gauge's WAR, because I know some people who post on this site are interested in that, as well.
On this site, Santo is credited with 66.4 WAR.
On Fangraphs, Santo is credited with 79.3 WAR.
On Baseball Gauge, Santo is credited with 55.7 WAR.
On this site, Santo is ranked 75th among position players in career WAR.
On Fangraphs, Santo is ranked 47th among position players in career WAR.
On Baseball Gauge, Santo is ranked 115th among position players in career WAR.
Obviously, these distinctions are pretty great. This site ranks him in the middle of the three, so it's probably a pretty good place to look. Anyway, I hope this was at least a little helpful.
December 5th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
I am as much of a "stat rat" as the next guy, but I don't dig too deep into the sabermetric bag of tricks to gauge who is worthy of HOF induction and who is not. For Santo or any position player, ask these 3 questions, and if you get at least 1 yes, you usually have yourself a Hall of Famer:
1. Was _______ the dominant player at his position for at least 4 or 5 consecutive seasons?
2. Was _______ one of the 3 or 4 guys considered to be the best at his position for at least 10 consecutive seasons?
3. Was _______ still a viable player when he reached a significant statistical career milestone (3,000 knocks, 500 HR)?
For Santo, the answers are NO, YES and NO. From 1963 - 73, he was in the near the top of the heap among 3rd basemen who played during that stretch. No eye-popping stats, so I can see perhaps why the writers didn't jump on him right away, but I don't see how they could ignore his body of work for 15 years in a row.
December 5th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Ronnie said "Dont' put me in the Hall of Fame after I die." Can you imagine how horrible his family will feel? HOF are a bunch of morans.
December 5th, 2010 at 7:44 pm
@134 Big Daddy,
That's not a bad idea but that seems like a litmus test for a HOF with about 300-400 position players. You would have to narrow down the question or they would have to have at least 2 yes votes. The third question seems kind of odd & irrelevant.
The third one should be, "Was this player one of the 3-4 best players at his position over a span of 20 years?" The second one should be was this player one of the top 2-3 at his position over 10 years. And then the candidate should probably have to have at least 2 yes votes.
As far as question one goes, that should be a yes for Santo for Santo because he was not only the Best 3b from 1964-1969, he was also one of the best players in baseball if not the best. Also, a really great player can lead in 5 year, 10 year, 20 year increments several times.
If you switched the questions and asked them about Santo it would be something like this. I did a play index for WAR leaders among 3b during these time increments:
Was Santo ever the Best player at his position for 5 years? Yes, six times, '62-66, '63-67, '64-68, '65-69, '66-70, '67-71.
Was Santo ever the Best player at his position for 10 years? Yes, seven times, '60-69, '61-70, '62-71, '63-72, '64-73, '65-74, '66-75.
Was Santo ever the Best player at his position for 20 years? Yes, two times, 1961-1980, 1962-1981.
December 5th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
Big Daddy,
The problem with question like "Was he the best for x amount of years" is that a player can get stuck behind an all time great and never have a chance to be the best at his position. Say any short stop who was behind A-Rod or any left fielder behind Bonds.
I usually use a player's Career WAR + their 7 best seasons and divide by 2. That seems to be more fair and takes out the arbitrary nature of 5 or 10 year spans.
Take Ron Santo, he had a career WAR of 65.3, his best 7 came out to 51.4=116.7 divided by 2=58.3. A score of 58. 3 is usually a no-doubt HOF. Usually the HOF cut-off is anywhere from scores of 45-50. It's extremely rare for someone to score a 58.3 and not be a HOF.
Last year's inductee Andre Dawson had a 57 career WAR and a 39.1 best of 7 which came out to 96.1 divided by 2= 48.5.
December 6th, 2010 at 8:56 am
Why not put the entire 1969 Cubs team in the HOF. After all, in this, their "Glory Year" they did finish 8 games out of first! Which, of course, is where a team with 4 Hall of Famers should finish. If Billy Williams and Santo had played their careers in the Astrodome instead of Wrigley Field, nobody would have ever heard of them.
December 6th, 2010 at 10:00 am
Jim B,
I don't follow your point, I guess it's supposed to be interpreted as sarcasm.
The 1979 Padres had 4 HOF, Winfield, O. Smith, Perry & Fingers and they had a 68-93 record and finished 22 games out of first place.
The 1980 Red Sox had 5 HOF, Yaz, Fisk, Eckersly, Perez and Rice and they had a 83-73 record and finished 19 games out of first place.
December 6th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
John Q, thank you again. You should have your own blog.
December 6th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
LOOK AT RONNIE'S ALL-STAR VOTING. In that era, the players voted for the Starting lineups until the late 1960s. For the players, it wasn't just a popularity contest, each league wanted to win the game. Ask an American League player who they wanted at third base against the best of the National League, they usually picked Brooksie. Ask a National League player who they wanted at third base against the best of the American League, most often they picked Ron Santo. Forget comparing Gold Glove awards, those are popularity contests, not stats-based. So why is it that only sportswriters got to vote on HOF for so long? Because MLB doesn't run the museum, and somebody thought it made sense to let sportswriters vote on the players. After all, they watch these guys all the time, right? Perhaps they should open up the balloting to all players who had a ten-year career -- the same rule of thumb they use for eligibility to be on the ballot. After all, even if you're not on the ballot more than one year, at least you played long enough to form an opinion. Does it take sportswriters ten years before they are "qualified" to vote on the players?? I'm just engaging in my usual Monday hobby of circular thinking. Go ahead, shoot me down. I just don't buy into this notion that sportswriters have all the answers, because, well, I used to be a sportswriter, and I can't answer this one: why isn't Ron Santo in the Hall of Fame? Unless it's because of clueless sportswriters, is all I can figure. . . . .
December 6th, 2010 at 11:19 pm
Ron was a great third baseman of his time and all time. His attitude and heartfelt announcing for the cubs will be surely missed as will he as a person. R.I.P Ron
December 7th, 2010 at 1:49 am
That sounds like a good idea Phil. Though players can be biased & wrong about who is the best guy, so i think we should measure accomplishments, not awards. Though writers can be especially, dismayingly bad at analysis, they have showe3d some obvious progress the last couple of years, as with King Felix.
John Q., great points. Though is not your career WAR measure slightly off for Santo? And since WAR weighs so heavily in your player evaluations: where do you fall in interpreting the very different systems of WAR? If we have no good reason to know which version is best, & they often vary by a LARGE percent: how can we put much stock in them, unless it is shown that one is much more reliable?
December 7th, 2010 at 9:23 am
It looks like Santo is 47th in career WAR among position players at Fangraphs. Even higher than Sean Smith and Baseball Reference have him (75th, I think)
December 8th, 2010 at 12:11 am
Ran a PI on Santo's WAR compared to other players during a 10-year stretch from 1963-72. Notice the Hall of Famers in their prime who ranked below Santo.
Star indicated HOF member
1. *Hank Aaron 68.4
2. *Willie Mays 67.7
3. *Roberto Clemente 63.6
4. RON SANTO 63.4
5. *Carl Yaz 60.9
6. Dick Allen 54.8
7. *Frank Robinson 53.4
8. *Brooks Robinson 49.5
9. *Willie McCovey 48.2
10. *Billy Williams 48.0
11. *Harmon Killebrew 46.9
12. Joe Torre 44.2
13. Jim Fregosi 43.7
14. Pete Rose 43.5
15. *Al Kaline 43.3
Ten Hall of Famers, rankes best among third basemen. Everyone seems to think Santo had a short peak, but a 10-year run like that seems worthy of enshrinement in Cooperstown.
December 8th, 2010 at 8:54 am
ron santo should have already been elected to the hall of fame years ago. also ken boyer has been completely forgotten. they were not only the best third basemen of their time and all time, but were among the best players overall as their places among league leaders year after year shows. the veterans comittee is a joke & can't be taken seriously.
December 8th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Reply to Alla Youse Guys- you know who you are..
Does any other player combine components of 'all-time great' with 'just another real good player' as much as Ron Santo?
I haven't been able to quit thinking on the Ron Santo questions. Here are some pieces of the Santo Understanding as I've found it.
First is, the Wrigley home/ road discrepancy shows two factors: park effect and day/night. Day/night brings in diabetes' effects on vision. There's a lot more to baseball vision than seeing 20/20. If Santo's road is 82.5%, then 89% would be in the unremarkable range. (Documented in posts above) Let me posit that playing under the lights (with diabetes) may explain Santo's extra 5%+ deficiency. If Santo could have injected insulin and played with Speaker, Gehringer or DiMaggio, we would have a very different set of numbers to appreciate.
Bill James drew different shaped lines to illustrate the shape of generic great and normal baseball careers. Santo's line fits the picture in one way but it ends way too early for a player hitting his heights. Consider an imaginary four years added to Santo's career, placed before his last three years. That would be Santo without diabetes.
What I'm saying is not meant to replace what truly is, it is to understand better what Santo did on the field.
John Q's look at the six-year valuations lights up a metric to show Santo as 'the best in baseball, best in his league, best at position'. He is with the all-time greats with this. Others show this holds for 5, 10 and 15 year cycles. After WW2 Brett, Boggs and Schmidt also are listed.
The measuring sticks DO make a difference. TPRs, Win Shares, and the various WARs and adjusted onbase plus sluggings, etc do get different answers to ranking of seasons. Defensive stats are a problem in the numbers. For Ron, I think it's fair to say he's firmly in the group behind the few best fielders and well above an average 3B.
Every system shows Al Rosen had the best single season. Baker had the best consecutive four years. Eddie Mathews is the effective equal of Schmidt, but was compared to Musial, Mays, Aaron, Mantle. Mike has the same seasons as Eddie, slightly better, but was the best in the Majors in his time. Brett hit the best ever over three-week stretches. Specific seasons can validly have different value totals. Some rank Santo's 66 over 67, and vice versa. For best 3/4/5 years, Santo is with Schmidt and Mathews, a little ahead of Brett. I haven't studied Boggs, mainly because I was always looking to support Brett and better.
Ron Santo is the 3rd to 6th best third baseman of all time, 3rd or 4th in the National League, not considering the 'what-ifs' that held him back in these rankings. Thanks for reading.
Clark
December 8th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
REPOLY TO FRANK post 134: Thanks for showing how even the Era of The Pitcher, when batting stats decined, did not stop Ron Santo from performing at the Top of The Game. And I've never understood the "short career" complaint against Ron Santo. HOF eligibility requires a ten-year career just to have your name on the ballot, so how can MORE than ten years be too short? I don't get it.....
December 8th, 2010 at 10:30 pm
I think you answered your own question Phil. 10 years is the minimum requirement, but presumably it takes dominance in those 10 years to be a real HOF candidate. Koufax pitched 12(?) seasons and he's in. If Don Sutton retired after 12 years, does he make it? Of course not. He needed the extra bulk to produce a "great" career, because he was only a "good" pitcher. Anyway, compared to other HOFers, Santo's career is somewhat short season-wise, but because he never missed a game, it's not short game-wise. Looks like there's about 120 HOF batters who played more than 15 seasons, but only about 63 with more than 2243 games.
December 8th, 2010 at 11:25 pm
John Q- a question ???
If you don't mind... I found your six-year rolling averages very intriguing. I'm saving your posts.
You wrote that you prefer this scale: a player's career WAR + his best seven seasons, divided by two. This sounds like a balanced answer to the 'peak vs career' conundrum.
Are you using 'best consecutive 7 years' or 'best seven seasons'? (I'd think, cherry-pick the best seven.)
Have you constructed any charts or lists with your metric?
If so, have you generated different results in players rankings depending on using this WAR versus another WAR, Win Shares, WARP, WSAB, etc? What would it take to make an average from the top three methods?
The most controversy on rankings is found in catchers, shortstops, 2B and 3B. Your viewpoints would be very interesting here.
Nobody else, that I know of, has made this kind of baseball matrix. Do you want to write a new book? Thanks.
Clark