Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 45 to 66 of 305

Thread: Update- Santo in! 15 of 16 votes

  1. #45
    1-888-NEED-HIM brett05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Plainfield, IL
    Posts
    26,115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FirstTimer View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    ZOMG! So are some other HOF'ers.
    Then kick them out if it is so disparaging.
    Hidden Content
    Follow Me on Twitter: @sportsdream - Sports Tweets, Life, God, etc.

  2. #46
    1-888-NEED-HIM brett05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Plainfield, IL
    Posts
    26,115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rice Cube View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think it was a bit of both. The media probably did hold a grudge against Santo because he was a toolbag and arguably his numbers might be borderline if you use the brett05 school of thought so the media used both to their advantage in denying Santo the HOF.

    I guess we'll find out next week what the committee says.
    You mean the yet revised again committee?
    Hidden Content
    Follow Me on Twitter: @sportsdream - Sports Tweets, Life, God, etc.

  3. #47
    1-888-NEED-HIM brett05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Plainfield, IL
    Posts
    26,115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FirstTimer View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Yes, really.



    False.

    Baines played 22 seasons. He made 6 All Star teams.

    Santo played 15 seasons. Made 9 All star teams. Won 5 Gold Gloves. Wasn't considered the best 3B of his time. Brooks Robinson owns that honor.
    Santo was also in the Top 10 of the MVP voting 4 times. Baines twice. Santo was in the top 5 twice. Baines...never.

    The black ink and gray ink stats relative to their peers isn't even close. Santo was better. Baines career numbers look nice but he was a classic case of a stat compiler. For the last 10-12 years of his career he floated around colleting hits and middling stat totals. Props to him for the longevity but even at his peak Santo was better relative to their era's.

    LOL at comparing their "ailments". Santo had diabetes at a time when it was virutally untreatable(compared to today)..it helped end his career and basically it eventually killed him. Baines had bad knees. Santo's "ailment" caused his legs to be removed at the knees.
    Santo's ailment allowed him to play the field, Baines did not.
    Hidden Content
    Follow Me on Twitter: @sportsdream - Sports Tweets, Life, God, etc.

  4. #48
    v. 2.0: Fully Modded FirstTimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    26,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lex L. View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Not really. The media has a job to do independent of how the player treated them, even if it was badly. Its beyond stupid to blame Santo while overlooking that the media didnt do its job.
    Both are too blame.

    The media clearly isn't doing it's job well.

    Santo was an asshole.

    It's the perfect shit storm for getting left out.

    Santo was an easy guy to forget at the time. He played on some really bad teams with other better players like Banks, Williams, Fergie. Brooks Robinson was clearly the elite 3B at the time and 3B weren't really put into the HOF much to begin with around that time. People moved past Santo rather easily and his personality and ego made it easier to do so. Does it make it right? No. Is it a factor? Of course.



    No one gave the media "a pass". You clearly can't read.

  5. #49
    Senior Member Lex L.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,303

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rice Cube View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Arguably neither one should've gotten in, but Dawson should've gotten in first They were more "borderline" candidates to me.
    Here's the problem with saying neither should have gotten in. If you're going to not let guys in during the steroid era because 500 HRs doesnt mean much anymore, then, to be consistent and look at Dawson's and Rice's era, they put up good numbers for their era. It's like they only use the era as context if it's an era where there were historically big numbers (like the 90s). But if you played in an era where there weren't huge numbers compared to the 20s-50s (like the 70s-80s), then it's hypocrtical to measure them against the 20s-50s.
    Hidden Content Originally Posted by FirstTimer Hidden Content
    I like being a raging vagina. The constant inflammation doesn't bother me.

    THE WOLF

    ``Now is the Law of the Jungle---as old and true as the sky;

    And the wolf that shall keep it may prosper, but the wolf that shall break it must die.

    As the creeper that girdles the tree-trunk, the Law runneth forward and back---

    For the strength of the pack is the wolf, and the strength of the wolf is the pack.''

    --Rudyard Kipling

  6. #50
    v. 2.0: Fully Modded FirstTimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    26,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Then kick them out if it is so disparaging.
    Yeah. Let's kick Carl Yazstremski out of the HOF.

    WHAT?!

    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Santo's ailment allowed him to play the field, Baines did not.
    Yeah Santo's "ailment" really allowed him to play the field. Sorry. Andre Dawson had some of the worst knees on the planet. He played in the NL for basically his his entire career. I have no pity for Baines.

  7. #51
    v. 2.0: Fully Modded FirstTimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    26,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rice Cube View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Arguably neither one should've gotten in, but Dawson should've gotten in first They were more "borderline" candidates to me.


    Dawson should have been in much....MUCH sooner.

  8. #52
    World Series Dreaming Rice Cube's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    18,102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lex L. View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Here's the problem with saying neither should have gotten in. If you're going to not let guys in during the steroid era because 500 HRs doesnt mean much anymore, then, to be consistent and look at Dawson's and Rice's era, they put up good numbers for their era. It's like they only use the era as context if it's an era where there were historically big numbers (like the 90s). But if you played in an era where there weren't huge numbers compared to the 20s-50s (like the 70s-80s), then it's hypocrtical to measure them against the 20s-50s.
    I think part of the issue is that I'm using their calculated accumulated value while you guys are looking at raw numbers. There are multiple ways of assessing value.

    I guess my definition of a HOFer will be different than yours as a result, but even with all its flaws, value is calculated based on contemporary data and thus you cannot compare Ron Santo to Ryan Zimmerman, for example. But during his time, Ron Santo was one of the best 3B and that's what we're trying to argue. It might be biased if we weren't using value statistics, and I know not everyone believes in them, but that's what I'm using and I think it's more consistent that way. That's why even with their raw numbers, the fact that Rice and Dawson made so many outs decreased their value relative to Santo.

    To each their own, though. The HOF standards aren't really set in stone, and those HOF indicators on B-Ref aren't much more than guidelines. That's why this is always going to be argued unless the guy is a slam dunk like a Babe Ruth.

  9. #53
    v. 2.0: Fully Modded FirstTimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    26,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rice Cube View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That's why even with their raw numbers, the fact that Rice and Dawson made so many outs decreased their value relative to Santo.
    To be fair in this; Rice was always shitty and slow(as a runner/fielder). Dawson was a legit 5 tool elite player early in his career who could run. Even after his knees went he wasn't even nearly the double play waiting to happen that Rice was.
    Last edited by FirstTimer; 11-30-2011 at 04:03 PM.

  10. #54
    1-888-NEED-HIM brett05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Plainfield, IL
    Posts
    26,115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FirstTimer View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Yeah. Let's kick Carl Yazstremski out of the HOF.

    WHAT?!
    Where did I say that? Come on now. You've been civil up to now.

    Yeah Santo's "ailment" really allowed him to play the field. Sorry. Andre Dawson had some of the worst knees on the planet. He played in the NL for basically his his entire career. I have no pity for Baines.
    Based on Dawson playing the field and Baines not, I gotta let what we see speak for itself meaning Baines knees were worse. Again, I am not saying Baines should be in though I think I can make a case for him. Santo shouldn't be. You have to argue him in. A HOFer should be a don't even have to think about it choice.

    I also think it is wrong to penalize for longevity. It's not like they got the stats in a different level of the game. And teams kept wanting the players.
    Hidden Content
    Follow Me on Twitter: @sportsdream - Sports Tweets, Life, God, etc.

  11. #55
    World Series Dreaming Rice Cube's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    18,102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FirstTimer View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    To be fair in this; Rice was always shitty and slow(as a runner/fielder). Dawson was a legit 5 tool elite player early in his career who could run. Even after his knees went he wasn't even nearly the double play waiting to happen that Rice was.
    Nice to know what you think of me. Asshole.


  12. #56
    v. 2.0: Fully Modded FirstTimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    26,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Then kick them out if it is so disparaging.
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Where did I say that?
    See above


    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Based on Dawson playing the field and Baines not, I gotta let what we see speak for itself meaning Baines knees were worse.
    Or he just wasn't a good fielder to begin with.....................................but was lucky enough to play in the AL.


    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Again, I am not saying Baines should be in though I think I can make a case for him.


    No you can't.

    Baines has virtually no case.
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Santo shouldn't be. You have to argue him in. A HOFer should be a don't even have to think about it choice.
    LOL at this. Baines was barely an afterthought as a HOFer. I think the most votes he got one year was like 6%. Baines was then dropped from the ballot later for not even getting 5%. Santo's last season he had 43% of the vote. Santo's first and worst year of the HOF voting he had 10% of the vote....Baines best season....well you've seen the numbers.

    I have no clue how you can say you can make a case for Baines....yet Santo shouldn't be in because Santo has to be argued in.?!?!?!? That makes zero sense. Zero. Your logic here is awful....but I'm not surprised.





    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I also think it is wrong to penalize for longevity.
    I'm not penalizing Baines for longevity but I'm also not going to let it skew the numbers and I'm still going to look at them in context. Longevity or not Baines was never as good a player, even at his peak, as Santo was..who also played for 15 years. There's no way any sane person can say Santo "doesn't belong" but that "they could make a case for Harold Baines". You don't think Santo belongs? Fine. I disagree but I see why. But don't give me the crap that Santo doesn't and Baines has a case.

  13. #57
    1-888-NEED-HIM brett05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Plainfield, IL
    Posts
    26,115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FirstTimer View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    See above
    That does not say Carl is out.

    Or he just wasn't a good fielder to begin with.....................................but was lucky enough to play in the AL.
    Baines was an incredible RF when he was healthy. A small sample size though



    No you can't.

    Baines has virtually no case.

    LOL at this. Baines was barely an afterthought as a HOFer. I think the most votes he got one year was like 6%. Baines was then dropped from the ballot later for not even getting 5%. Santo's last season he had 43% of the vote. Santo's first and worst year of the HOF voting he had 10% of the vote....Baines best season....well you've seen the numbers.

    I have no clue how you can say you can make a case for Baines....yet Santo shouldn't be in because Santo has to be argued in.?!?!?!? That makes zero sense. Zero. Your logic here is awful....but I'm not surprised.
    They both need to be argued in is what I have said.




    I'm not penalizing Baines for longevity but I'm also not going to let it skew the numbers and I'm still going to look at them in context. Longevity or not Baines was never as good a player, even at his peak, as Santo was..who also played for 15 years. There's no way any sane person can say Santo "doesn't belong" but that "they could make a case for Harold Baines". You don't think Santo belongs? Fine. I disagree but I see why. But don't give me the crap that Santo doesn't and Baines has a case.
    My statement is still you can make cases for and against both. Both were very good players. Both are not Hall of Fame players even though cases can be made. Please read better instead of assuming things.
    Hidden Content
    Follow Me on Twitter: @sportsdream - Sports Tweets, Life, God, etc.

  14. #58
    1-888-NEED-HIM brett05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Plainfield, IL
    Posts
    26,115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FirstTimer View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

    Baines has virtually no case.

    LOL at this. Baines was barely an afterthought as a HOFer. I think the most votes he got one year was like 6%. Baines was then dropped from the ballot later for not even getting 5%.
    Santo got four percent and dropped after one year. Back on only after complaints were logged of which none of them have gotten in that have gotten this "extra life."

    Santo's last season he had 43% of the vote. Santo's first and worst year of the HOF voting he had 10% of the vote....Baines best season....well you've seen the numbers.
    Now if I was like you I would go on endlessly ranting how your numbers are wrong. 4% in 1980, right?
    Hidden Content
    Follow Me on Twitter: @sportsdream - Sports Tweets, Life, God, etc.

  15. #59
    World Series Dreaming Rice Cube's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    18,102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    My statement is still you can make cases for and against both. Both were very good players. Both are not Hall of Fame players even though cases can be made. Please read better instead of assuming things.
    Kenny Lofton was much more valuable than Harold Baines. Lofton probably won't get in, unfortunately. You can take a look at raw numbers as a baseline, but you definitely have to look at how good those guys were.

    For example, Jim Edmonds is a lot better than Harold Baines as well, and at Lofton's level in terms of value. Jim Edmonds might get into the HOF but a lot of people think it's borderline.

  16. #60
    World Series Dreaming Rice Cube's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    18,102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Santo got four percent and dropped after one year. Back on only after complaints were logged of which none of them have gotten in that have gotten this "extra life."



    Now if I was like you I would go on endlessly ranting how your numbers are wrong. 4% in 1980, right?
    Just because Santo was dropped from the ballot doesn't mean the voters weren't retarded.

  17. #61
    1-888-NEED-HIM brett05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Plainfield, IL
    Posts
    26,115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rice Cube View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Kenny Lofton was much more valuable than Harold Baines. Lofton probably won't get in, unfortunately. You can take a look at raw numbers as a baseline, but you definitely have to look at how good those guys were.

    For example, Jim Edmonds is a lot better than Harold Baines as well, and at Lofton's level in terms of value. Jim Edmonds might get into the HOF but a lot of people think it's borderline.
    I am not talking about Baines over anyone. Just Baines versus his contemporaries. Just Santo versus his contemporaries.
    Hidden Content
    Follow Me on Twitter: @sportsdream - Sports Tweets, Life, God, etc.

  18. #62
    1-888-NEED-HIM brett05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Plainfield, IL
    Posts
    26,115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rice Cube View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Just because Santo was dropped from the ballot doesn't mean the voters weren't retarded.
    You are right. Major conspiracy.
    Hidden Content
    Follow Me on Twitter: @sportsdream - Sports Tweets, Life, God, etc.

  19. #63
    1-888-NEED-HIM brett05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Plainfield, IL
    Posts
    26,115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rice Cube View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Just because Santo was dropped from the ballot doesn't mean the voters weren't retarded.
    Just because baines only got 6% doesn't mean he should be in? Sounds just as bad doesn't it?
    Hidden Content
    Follow Me on Twitter: @sportsdream - Sports Tweets, Life, God, etc.

  20. #64
    1-888-NEED-HIM brett05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Plainfield, IL
    Posts
    26,115

    Default

    For what it is worth by way of comparison, baseball-reference compares Santo to no hall of fame players while Baines is comparable to 5 hall of fame players.

    I show that just to say an argument can be made for Baines being in.
    Hidden Content
    Follow Me on Twitter: @sportsdream - Sports Tweets, Life, God, etc.

  21. #65
    World Series Dreaming Rice Cube's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    18,102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Just because baines only got 6% doesn't mean he should be in? Sounds just as bad doesn't it?
    No, there are two separate arguments. One is whether people who study and watch baseball objectively think Santo should be in. The other is whether the media folks (including the contemporary versions of ignorant asshats like Paul Sullivan, even though I'm not sure Sullivan has a vote) thinks Santo should be in.

    There is no objective measure that says Baines should get into the HOF. But there have been arguments for the side of Santo by many outside this board. Ron Santo is one of the greatest Cubs players of all-time and definitely in the top five if not the top third baseman of all-time as a Cub. Harold Baines was a DH who was very solid while he was young but basically latched on as a DH to end his career.

    I'd post links and studies to support Santo's candidacy but it's not like anti-Santo folks would read it anyway. There are no pro- or anti-Baines studies of note out there (at least I haven't found any) because he isn't getting in so there's really no discussion there. This is not to take anything away from Baines; he had a successful career, he's just not a Hall of Famer.

    You know who is though? This guy:

    Frank Thomas Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com

  22. #66
    v. 2.0: Fully Modded FirstTimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    26,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That does not say Carl is out.
    HINT************** YAZ IS ONE OF THE PLAYERS WHO HIT MUCH WORSE AWAY FROM HIS HOME FIELD!

    How hard is that to pick up on?


    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Baines was an incredible RF when he was healthy. A small sample size though
    No gold gloves..no real standout seasons...baines was not an incredible fielder...He was above average...but not upper tier.



    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    They both need to be argued in is what I have said
    You are incredibly dense.

    You: Santo shouldn't be a HOF'er because he has to be argued in

    You: I think Baines should be a HOF'er. I have an argument/case for it.

    Let that sink in for a second.

    Now go away.








    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    For what it is worth by way of comparison, baseball-reference compares Santo to no hall of fame players while Baines is comparable to 5 hall of fame players.
    It's not worth anything.

    Baines career numbers "compare well" because he played for so long.

    No one in their right mind would compare the careers of Andrew Dawson, Al Kaline, Tony Perez, Dave Parker, or Jim Rice with Harold Baines. Ever. This is a perfect example of simple stat compiling while never being great skewing data. Look at his year by year comparisons. No HOF'ers until you get to Tony Perez' broken down last 6 seasons. His only other comparable is Dave Winfields first full season in the bigs.

    Look at his HOF monitors you quoted for Santo......Santo is much higher and much closer. Baines on 3 of the 4 isn't even in the ball park. Santo is at least scraping the underside of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I show that just to say an argument can be made for Baines being in.
    There is no argument for Harold Baines in the HOF.
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Just because baines only got 6% doesn't mean he should be in? Sounds just as bad doesn't it?
    That migh tbe true inrelation to Santo except for teh fact that Baines always hovered around 5%..then dropped. Santo got 4%..then got back on the ballot, got 10% and never looked back basically rising each year percentage wise. ...which one of these is not like the other.................

    Baines was on the ballot for half a decade and NEVER had any meaningful support. Santo was on the ballot for years and his support started rising over that time. You trying to compare the two is absurd.

    Santo compared to his contemporaries>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Baines. it's not close. and Not a question.

Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •