2009 Hall of Fame Ballot

[NorthSideSox72]

Say what you want for Santo’s skills as a broadcaster, but his love for the Cubs has no equal. I really hope he gets in this year, he has the numbers, and he’s gone through so much in his life that he deserves at least a little comfort though the Hall of Fame. I'm not really sure what's not to like about the guy, other than him being a Cub and a total homer, but these are just my thoughts.

He's an irritating announcer. But I agree that he deserves a HoF bid for his playing time.

 

[clyons]

If I had a HOF vote, I'd be a real hardass. Imo, you should be able to decide whether a guy is HOF material within 5 seconds of hearing his name. If you have to even look at a player's stats to decide how he "compares" to other members, he shouldn't get in. I'd use the unofficial "first ballot" criteria as my main admission criteria, and screw that whole BS distinction.

 

Santo has had his chances and hasn't been deemed worthy by umpteen panels of voters (both writers AND veterans). He should remain out. I felt the same way about Nellie Fox.

Edited December 8, 2008 by PlaySumFnJurny

[lord chas]

no santo thank god

[fathom]

no santo thank god

 

Amen!

[Texsox]

He's an irritating announcer. But I agree that he deserves a HoF bid for his playing time.

 

It would seem that some people would like about 25 players in the Hall and no one else, as high as they set their standards. It's a fricking museum for the game of baseball. It isn't holy, it isn't offering immortality. It's a museum. A Santo display would be very interesting. More interesting than some 1915 shortstop that no one has ever heard of.

[Pants Rowland]

It would seem that some people would like about 25 players in the Hall and no one else, as high as they set their standards. It's a fricking museum for the game of baseball. It isn't holy, it isn't offering immortality. It's a museum. A Santo display would be very interesting. More interesting than some 1915 shortstop that no one has ever heard of.

 

I don't know. I was looking at Dick Allen's credentials the other day. Pretty impressive. In fact, pretty similar stats to Santo on many levels. People that saw him mention him as one of the best they ever saw, but something of a head case. Cut his career short because he got tired of the game and wanted to raise horses or something. Not HOF material to date, though. Santo gets a lot of documentaries and whines a lot about not getting in and people feel like he deserves it more than a lot of other almost HOFers. Why is he more deserving than these other guys that come up short?

 

I personally prefer to limit membership to the elite players, but even if you take your approach and relax criteria a bit, I am not sure Santo should be the first through the door. If I were voting, all of Ronnie's lobbying and whining over the years would've lost my vote on principle alone.

 

 

[Texsox]

My comments were more general than specific to Santo.

 

In Santo's defense, the baseball community has built up his hopes quite a few times.

[clyons]

It would seem that some people would like about 25 players in the Hall and no one else, as high as they set their standards. It's a fricking museum for the game of baseball. It isn't holy, it isn't offering immortality. It's a museum. A Santo display would be very interesting. More interesting than some 1915 shortstop that no one has ever heard of.

 

Not literally it isn't; but it is in the sense of being baseball's pinnacle of achievement.

 

When "interesting-ness" is deemed an official, Hall-worthy criteria, they can let in Eddie Gaedell. Unless and until they do, Santo should be kept out.

 

I have no problem with their being 290 or so members, but you have to draw the line somewhere. Every time its been drawn with respect to Ronnie (and regardless of who has done the drawing), he's been on the wrong (but correct, imo) side. That, I have no problem with at all.

 

 

[ThunderBolt]

So, are we really going to wait till Santo’s dead to admit we made a mistake with him? The guy averaged .277 25 Hrs 96 RBis, while playing good defense, suffering from a horrible case on diabetes, and while playing on terrible teams. I really can’t understand what the hate is about: he’s the Cubs equivalent of Hawk Harrelson, and while truly, a poor announcer, his unbridled love for his team is quite charming. The only thing that I can see happening to change Santo’s fortunes is the Cubs winning a World Series while he’s watching (like that’s going to happen.)

[Texsox]

Not literally it isn't; but it is in the sense of being baseball's pinnacle of achievement.

 

When "interesting-ness" is deemed an official, Hall-worthy criteria, they can let in Eddie Gaedell. Unless and until they do, Santo should be kept out.

 

I have no problem with their being 290 or so members, but you have to draw the line somewhere. Every time its been drawn with respect to Ronnie (and regardless of who has done the drawing), he's been on the wrong (but correct, imo) side. That, I have no problem with at all.

 

If it is suppose to designate only the greatest of players, why aren't players removed when other players surpass those achievements? It's a museum that celebrates the history of the game. If it was all about stats, just list the stats necessary to achieve membership and forget about voting.

[clyons]

So, are we really going to wait till Santo’s dead to admit we made a mistake with him? The guy averaged .277 25 Hrs 96 RBis, while playing good defense, suffering from a horrible case on diabetes, and while playing on terrible teams. I really can’t understand what the hate is about: he’s the Cubs equivalent of Hawk Harrelson, and while truly, a poor announcer, his unbridled love for his team is quite charming. The only thing that I can see happening to change Santo’s fortunes is the Cubs winning a World Series while he’s watching (like that’s going to happen.)

 

Ideally, the Cubs' future should have nothing to with Santo's past. He should be in or out based on his career alone.

 

Santo's is obviously a close case, as he has (IIRC) almost made it several times. I just happen to think "borderline" cases should be kept out.

 

 

[ThunderBolt]

Ideally, the Cubs' future should have nothing to with Santo's past. He should be in or out based on his career alone.

 

Santo's is obviously a close case, as he has (IIRC) almost made it several times. I just happen to think "borderline" cases should be kept out.

I mostly meant Santo’s mental fortunes, he really seems like he’ll live and die for the team. That being said, a Cubs World Series could conceivably lead to a resurgence of Cubby nostalgia leading the way for a Santo induction.

[Texsox]

I just happen to think "borderline" cases should be kept out.

 

Isn't the voting standard 75%, would you want that raised? But wouldn't there always be a "borderline" until it takes 100%?

[Gregory Pratt]

I don't know. I was looking at Dick Allen's credentials the other day. Pretty impressive. In fact, pretty similar stats to Santo on many levels. People that saw him mention him as one of the best they ever saw, but something of a head case. Cut his career short because he got tired of the game and wanted to raise horses or something. Not HOF material to date, though. Santo gets a lot of documentaries and whines a lot about not getting in and people feel like he deserves it more than a lot of other almost HOFers. Why is he more deserving than these other guys that come up short?

 

I personally prefer to limit membership to the elite players, but even if you take your approach and relax criteria a bit, I am not sure Santo should be the first through the door. If I were voting, all of Ronnie's lobbying and whining over the years would've lost my vote on principle alone.

 

His son made that documentary. Kind of takes the effect away.

[clyons]

If it is suppose to designate only the greatest of players, why aren't players removed when other players surpass those achievements? It's a museum that celebrates the history of the game. If it was all about stats, just list the stats necessary to achieve membership and forget about voting.

 

Are you suggesting a Hall of Fame should designate less than "the greatest of players"? Sort of a "Hall of Pretty Good for Their Time?"

 

Yes, the HOF is a museum, and yes, it celebrates the history of the game; but it also celebrates much more than just that.

Specifically, with respect to individual player enshrinement, I believe it not only celebrates, but separates and honors, the best of the best. The most traditional way of gauging that has generally been statistics, but not always. Human voters can weigh and assess intangbiles in a way computers can not.

 

Have some inductees been less than "the best of the best?" Unquestionably. Does that mean we should gauge everyone's admission by that lowest common denominator? I think not.

 

I'm not sure I get your other point. I happen to think "The Godfather" surpassed "Citizen Kane" as a film, but that doesn't diminish my admiration for "Citizen Kane" on its own merits, or warrant Kane's removal from any pantheon of cinema.

Edited December 8, 2008 by PlaySumFnJurny

[clyons]

Isn't the voting standard 75%, would you want that raised? But wouldn't there always be a "borderline" until it takes 100%?

 

Not at all. I'm merely talking about how I would cast my hypothetical vote. If I saw somebody as a 50/50 case, I would vote "No."

[Texsox]

Are you suggesting a Hall of Fame should designate less than "the greatest of players"? Sort of a "Hall of Pretty Good for Their Time?"

 

Yes, the HOF is a museum, and yes, it celebrates the history of the game; but it also celebrates much more than just that.

Specifically, with respect to individual player enshrinement, I believe it not only celebrates, but separates and honors, the best of the best. The most traditional way of gauging that has always been statistics, but not always. Human voters can weigh and assess intangbiles in a way computers can not.

 

Have some inductees been less than "the best of the best?" Unquestionably. Does that mean we should gauge everyone's admission by that lowest common denominator? I think not.

 

I'm not sure I get your other point. I happen to think "The Godfather" surpassed "Citizen Kane" as a film, but that doesn't diminish my admiration for "Citizen Kane" on its own merits, or warrant Kane's removal from any pantheon of cinema.

 

Pick a number for the "best of the best". It's a moving target. As it is, the list continually increases. With players constantly surpassing the achievements of players, if we truly want the "best of the best" shouldn't some players be removed as other pass them in stats?

 

Perhaps there should be a shrine to the greatest 25 players of all time that changes with time, then the rest of the Hall. Would your visit to the HoF be ruined because Baines or Santo were included?

[WhiteSoxfan1986]

The Veterans Committee sucks anyway. If you can't get in on your first 15 tries, you don't deserve to get in.

Edited December 8, 2008 by WhiteSoxfan1986

[Texsox]

Not at all. I'm merely talking about how I would cast my hypothetical vote. If I saw somebody as a 50/50 case, I would vote "No."

 

What would you standard be?

[Texsox]

The Veterans Committee sucks anyway. If you can't get in on your first 15 tries, you don't deserve to get in.

 

Are you suggesting that baseball writers are better, more knowledgeable, voters than the guys who are already in the Hall? I don't necessarily disagree, but I think having those two groups is a nice check and balance. I also like that the final gatekeepers are players.

[NorthSideSox72]

no santo thank god

little much, no?

 

[Pants Rowland]

So, are we really going to wait till Santo’s dead to admit we made a mistake with him? The guy averaged .277 25 Hrs 96 RBis, while playing good defense, suffering from a horrible case on diabetes, and while playing on terrible teams. I really can’t understand what the hate is about: he’s the Cubs equivalent of Hawk Harrelson, and while truly, a poor announcer, his unbridled love for his team is quite charming. The only thing that I can see happening to change Santo’s fortunes is the Cubs winning a World Series while he’s watching (like that’s going to happen.)

 

Is that entirely true? I seem to recall him playing alongside a couple future HOF hitters and thought he was on at least a couple .500+ teams. If his love for the cubs is so charming, maybe they should create their own HOF and make him the sole member. I am sorry, but it was only until he even got to the veteran's committee vote that he came close to making it. For some reason, the writers and players don't want him in. Maybe it is a conspiracy or maybe he just wasn't as good as the revisionist historian fans make him out to be.

[WhiteSoxfan1986]

Are you suggesting that baseball writers are better, more knowledgeable, voters than the guys who are already in the Hall? I don't necessarily disagree, but I think having those two groups is a nice check and balance. I also like that the final gatekeepers are players.

 

The veterans committee has definately made more questionable selections-like Phil Rizzuto.

[clyons]

Pick a number for the "best of the best". It's a moving target. As it is, the list continually increases. With players constantly surpassing the achievements of players, if we truly want the "best of the best" shouldn't some players be removed as other pass them in stats?

 

Perhaps there should be a shrine to the greatest 25 players of all time that changes with time, then the rest of the Hall. Would your visit to the HoF be ruined because Baines or Santo were included?

 

Admission standards are always moving targets. Today, I don't know that I could get in to the college of my choice with my ACT and grades. That doesn't change the fact that I was worthy of entry at the time I was admitted, and ain't no one in Hell gonna take my degree away me! I earned my admission and earned my degree. I am entitled to that distinction forever, regardless of whether future graduates surpass what I achieved. I see the HOF kind of the same way. Just like the guys who won the Masters in the 50's; they get to keep their Green Jackets and tee off at Augusta forever, even if Tiger can hit the ball 150 yards farther than they ever could.

 

 

[southsideirish71]

Maybe if Santo did a little less of this jackassery.

 

 

He might be in.