Link

The title amuses me.

I think I'd vote Santo in if I had a say/

I actually think he deserves a place. Think he'll wear a Sox hat?

The title amuses me.

I think I'd vote Santo in if I had a say/

 

That reminds me, we get to hear all the Santo fluff stories this year.

I'd only give him half a vote.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See you all in hell.

I'd only give him half a vote.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See you all in hell.

I'm really going to hell. At dinner tonight it was said that Santo and Banks were the heart and soul of those Cubs teams and that the current team lacks that, I replied Santo lacks sole today . . .

 

I'm going to hell too. Every time Santo doesn't get in, I tell my Cub fan friends "he doesn't have a leg to stand on in this debate". Always gets people mad at me, but I don't care.

 

In all seriouness though, the Santo fluff pieces are going to be sick (again). My guess is he won't get in, even though he deserves it based on his merit as a player, because of how much of a jag other players considered him (those on the Vet's committee). Shoulda been nicer, Ronny.

Edited February 22, 200719 yr by whitesoxfan101

I think Santo has the numbers to get in, but it will be a close vote.

I'm going to hell too. Every time Santo doesn't get in, I tell my Cub fan friends "he doesn't have a leg to stand on in this debate".

 

 

 

Jim Kaat and Tommy John are ex-Sox veteran's hopefuls too.

 

Harold Baines' likely as well.

I dont think Santo deserves to get in, its the Hall of Fame not the Hall of pretty good.

I dont think Santo deserves to get in, its the Hall of Fame not the Hall of pretty good.

 

Based on some of the others, he does deserve it. Now, I also think there needs to be an inner circle that separates Cy Young and Babe Ruth from Jim Bunning and Al Kaline

I think Santo belongs based on the numbers he produced in the era he played.

I guess I also give him points for being a good character guy.

I think Santo belongs based on the numbers he produced in the era he played.

I think that's always the debate. Are players judged against ALL other players at their position or by peers? Tough call, but if McGriff can get in, then Santo should.

I think that's always the debate. Are players judged against ALL other players at their position or by peers? Tough call, but if McGriff can get in, then Santo should.

 

Great point. I think it has to be both. Their numbers have to be compared to their era, and historical. Their peers offer some insight.