Ron Santo was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame today, and as divisive a case as his has been, I’m sure I have very few observations to make about it that won’t be echoed in the thousands of articles and blog and message board posts that are sure to appear in response over the coming days. So, I’m just going to give my views on Hall of Fame elections in general, and my opinion of Santo’s election within these parameters, with no promise that these views constitute some unique snowflake in the internet blizzard. This is a blog; it’s what we do.
Early in my period of employment with the Hall of Fame, toward the end of the last century, I attempted to start a discussion with a coworker about the Hall of Fame candidacy of a particular player. His reply was that he didn’t really care about who did or did not get into the Hall of Fame. The wealth of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum came from that last sometimes-overlooked part, he said, the preservation of the game’s rich and complex history, and all parts therein. He recognized the value of the Hall of Fame as the institution’s hook and revenue-generator, but he didn’t put all that much stock into who was or was not in. I was blown away by the response – as a visitor I had viewed the museum as a cool time-killer to justify the long trek to Cooperstown, but in my time of employment there I realized he was absolutely right. The museum – it’s displays, collections and research resources – tell much more of the story of what I love about baseball than the Hall of Fame does. I’m still not as indifferent as my friend seemed (seems) to be about who does or does not get inducted into the Hall, but my passion and perspective about who gets elected has been redirected by my experience as an employee there and my exposure to the greatness that surrounds the Plaque Gallery, for which I am very grateful.
So, my feelings about the election of a particular player boil down, I guess, to four ingredients. The first two involve whether the honor of the election serves a) the institution and b) the player in a way that makes me feel good. In the case of Ron Santo, his was a strong and passionate campaign. Cubs fans embraced him as one of their own, through his careers as a player and as a broadcaster for the team. I think that strength will be reflected in the turnout for his induction, though clearly not as strongly as it would have been a few years ago. Posthumous awards are bittersweet for everybody, and certainly I would feel better for Ron Santo and his family and fan base if he had been able to receive the honor personally. Certainly, the motivation to attend the ceremony in July would be bumped if Santo’s fans could see him smiling on the podium himself, and I long felt about his campaign, man, if you’re going to do it, do it now. I join the throng in feeling like this is good, but it could have been better, and it’s a shame that events played out as they have.
Parts three and four involve the equation are the questions “Did he deserve it?” and “Why did he get it?” In this case, the questions are intertwined.
In spite of its name, the Hall of Fame is not designed to reward or, necessarily, convey fame. Plenty of very famous ballplayers are not in, and at least a few inductees have long been forgotten by any but the most ardent students of the game’s history. The ideal, though, should be to house in the Plaque Gallery the images of players whose contributions to the game stand up over time.
I don’t remember seeing Santo play (although I have one or two of his baseball cards), and I don’t like statistics well enough to trust them to tell me the whole story of his career. I put more trust in the baseball writers who provide the first filter of the election process to give me a telling response. Santo received less than 4% of the vote his first year of eligibility in 1980 and was knocked off the ballot. He was reinstated on the ballot in 1985 and over the next 14 years, although his vote total grew steadily, he never received more than 50% of the votes. It took three permutations of the Veterans Committee, the last filter in the process, over 11 years before Santo finally got the version he needed to get the nod. I’m not a fan of Hall of Fame “campaigns” or players getting elected by sheer voter momentum, and I’m having a very hard time convincing myself that Santo was the kind of player whose on field achievements will be remembered without being refreshed by words on a plaque or numbers in an encyclopedia. His career is noteworthy, though, in that he was as good as he was (and he was indisputably very good) while dealing with an illness as serious as diabetes, and that is a story worth remembering and retelling.
What really rubs me wrong is the impression that the voter momentum that pushed him over the top came a good deal from Sabermetrics. I have some respect for Sabermetrics, but I also have a lot of issues (which will likely appear in a dedicated blog post or two). In the case of Santo, there appears to be a good deal of reconsideration of his career due to the increasing popularity of OBP (on base percentage) over batting average as a metric. I do believe that OBP is a very good component in measuring the value of any given player in his lineup. I do not believe, though, that a player’s ability to draw a walk should provide a swing response to a player’s Hall of Fame candidacy, and it certainly should not be given equal weight across the board. A walk to Rickey Henderson or Tim Raines is a lot more valuable (and exciting and worth assessing in a Hall of Fame case) than a walk to Ron Santo*.
(*If you really want to get into the numbers, Santo batted fourth in the lineup for over half his career plate appearances, which means he spent a good deal of time – nearly 25% of his plate appearances actually – leading off an inning, and in those plate appearances he had a .337 OBP, 25 points below his career average. So, it’s not like he was using those walks to get the engine started.)
On the other hand, part of Santo’s momentum was built upon a reassessment of his defense. Although I have little use for many defensive metrics, I do think that defense is abysmally under-utilized in assessing players overall, and I am willing to give the anecdotal evidence, along with the Gold Gloves, their due weight in the argument if they were, in fact, overlooked in his case.
To sum up, the Hall of Fame’s obvious stock in trade is Hall of Famers, and a regular influx of new inventory is necessary to keep the institution vibrant, relevant and solvent. To that end, the addition of a popular candidate like Ron Santo, a player who succeeded through adversity and who provides a new and compelling thread to the Plaque Gallery’s tapestry, should be good for the institution. The timing of his election is quite unfortunate, to say the least; otherwise, although he is not likely to be etched among the Mount Rushmore of HOFers, and despite my reservations about the way in which his election came about, I feel fine about the selection. Not that you asked.

