Posted by tecwrg2 on 12/5/2011 10:25:00 PM (view original):
Why did Santo never get more than 43% of the BBWAA vote?
Because the BBWAA are idiots. They bought into the narrative for Brooks. Brooks had the good sense to play for better teams than did Ronnie, with far better pitching staffs, thus reaching the post-season (in those days it was only the WS) where he created the "World Series Defensive Wizard at 3B" position (largely due to 1970, he was very good!). He was also a very likable guy with whom the writers felt a genuine sense of affection. It was easy to vote for him. Not sure the writers (as a group) felt
I actually agree that Brooks deserves to be in the HOF. I just think Ronnie may have been a wee bit better player. Depends on how one ranks the offense/defense equilibrium. Brooks was better defensively, Ron on offense. If forced to choose one I would take Ron's offense over Brooksie's D. It's not like was a slouch with the glove, after all. He did win a few Gold Gloves (as silly as their selections can sometimes be. Andre Ethier? Really, with a bad knee? Did the voters really watch him play this year?)
The HOF Monitor was created NOT to predict who deserves to be in, but to predict who is MORE LIKELY to be enshrined. I'd say it predicted quite well in regards to Brooks and Ron.