In another thread, one poster asserts that Santo was simply a better player than Ken Boyer.

Here are relative comparisons:

Boyer                                                       Santo
15 seasons                                             15 seasons
8268 PA                                                  9396 PA
282 HR                                                   342 HR
1141 RBI                                                1331 RBI
.287/.349                                                 .277/.362
MVP                                                       RoY
Top Ten MVP: 4                                      Top Ten MVP: 4 
All-star: 7                                                All-star: 9
Gold Gloves: 5                                        Gold Gloves: 5
World Series MVP: 1                              World Series: 0

You simply cannot make a strong argument that one was better than the other; that one belongs in the Hall of Fame but the other does not.

Santo gained sympathy over the years as a broadcaster and Cubbie nostalgic; Boyer had the misfortune to die young and be forgotten.

 

I think I can make a strong argument.  Santo has some pretty good stuff in his favor, starting with context.  Boyer played in a pretty good offensive environment.  He finished up right before a very pitching dominant era.  Santo played through the whole no-scoring-allowed era.  This is reflected in their WAR.

Boyer, career WAR of 58.4.  Top WAR seasons:

WAR Position Players† s c a p y
1956 NL  6.2 (5th)
1958 NL  5.4 (6th)
1959 NL  5.8 (7th)
1960 NL  6.2 (5th)
1961 NL  7.8 (3rd)
1962 NL  5.2 (10th)
1964 NL  5.6 (9th)
Career  58.4 (117th)


Santo, career WAR of 66.4.  Top WAR seasons:

1963 NL  5.7 (8th)
1964 NL  7.9 (3rd)
1965 NL  7.6 (2nd)
1966 NL  8.3 (2nd)
1967 NL  10.2 (1st)
1968 NL  5.6 (8th)
1969 NL  6.1 (8th)
Career  66.4 (75th)

That's not very close.

Then you get to more basic stuff, like 60 more home runs.  Careers about the same length, and one player has two excellent seasons worth of home runs more than the other.  That's a lot.  He had a friendlier park but a much more difficult era in which to hit, so I don't think the context changes things much.

How about 190 more RBI?  Or 13 points of OBP?  Those aren't close.  How about OPS+ of 125 vs. 116?  That's not close.  430 total bases?  47 doubles?

You're certainly not obligated to agree with the argument, but if you want to show that Boyer was as good a player as Santo... I think your work is cut out for you.

Your argument about the post-1965 seasons is compromised, because Santo was younger than Boyer. They both crapped out at 34, but Boyer hit 34 in '65 and Santo still had several seasons to go. I think that context also deserves consideration.

And remember that my argument is not that Boyer is better -- only that it's hard to argue that Santo was better by more than an edge. I don't know if either ever makes the Hall of Fame, but I couldn't vote for one without also voting for the other.

Giving them a pass on their crappiest seasons at the beginning/end...

Santo 7421 AB, 129 OPS+, 281/368/475, 328 HR .. 1961-73 / 2031 games
Boyer 6891 AB, 118 OPS+, 290/352/466, 264 HR .. 1956-68 / 1862 games

Now, baseball-reference gives Boyer 7.1 WAR for his glove and Santo only 1.1, which is why they're so close. If you believe that Boyer was significantly better with the glove then I can see how they're close.

Otherwise, Santo has him everywhere else... longer useful career, better peak, higher OPS+ by a lot. 

How big is the difference in OPS+? For his career, Santo ranks 7th among 3Bs. Boyer ranks 19th (min 5000 AB). To me I can easily see an argument that you would only want the top 10, or 12, or whatever, which would exclude Boyer while including Santo.

doubletruck: "Your argument about the post-1965 seasons is compromised, because Santo was younger than Boyer. They both crapped out at 34, but Boyer hit 34 in '65 and Santo still had several seasons to go. I think that context also deserves consideration."

I don't understand what you're saying.  My argument wasn't that Boyer didn't last as long.  It was that Santo played the bulk of his career in the much lower offensive environment of the late 60s and early 70s.  Boyer played the bulk of his career in the much higher offensive environment of the late 50s and early 60s.  It was easier to get to Boyer's numbers when Boyer played than it was to get to Boyer's numbers when Santo played, and Santo outpaced Boyer's numbers by a lot.

"And remember that my argument is not that Boyer is better -- only that it's hard to argue that Santo was better by more than an edge."

I didn't misstate your argument.  I concluded: "You're certainly not obligated to agree with the argument, but if you want to show that Boyer was as good a player as Santo... I think your work is cut out for you."


jfranco77: "Giving them a pass on their crappiest seasons at the beginning/end..."

I'm cool with that in particular, not that I'm uncool with anything else you said.  I'll buy that Boyer was much a much better defensive third baseman.

back to doubletruck - here are the numbers you cited that are remotely close or where Boyer's were better:

Boyer                                                       Santo                   
15 seasons                                             15 seasons     Okay.
.287/.349                                                 .277/.362          BA but not OBP, in an environment where it was much easier to get
                                                                                             hits and walks.  Here's where we may have a conflict.  Both of these
                                                                                             guys were clearly underappreciated in their time.  Because of that, I
                                                                                             don't put much stock in what the voters thought at the time.  Also, 3rd
                                                                                             basemen just don't usually win MVPs.  Good on Boyer for getting his.
MVP                                                           RoY                           See above.
Top Ten MVP: 4                                      Top Ten MVP: 4       See above.
All-star: 7                                                All-star: 9                      Just an edge.
Gold Gloves: 5                                        Gold Gloves: 5          Okay, I'm granting that Boyer was a better fielder, but Santo obviously didn't suck.
World Series MVP: 1                              World Series: 0         Good on you, Ken.

So we've got better defense, similar career length, a little bit of batting average but lower OBP, relatively equal awards and all-star appearances.

jfranco77 again:  "Otherwise, Santo has him everywhere else... longer useful career, better peak, higher OPS+ by a lot. 

How big is the difference in OPS+? For his career, Santo ranks 7th among 3Bs. Boyer ranks 19th (min 5000 AB). To me I can easily see an argument that you would only want the top 10, or 12, or whatever, which would exclude Boyer while including Santo."

I'd like to read the affirmative case that Boyer was as thisclose to being as good a player as Santo was.

I mostly agree with the above.  While counting stats have them as similar players, but WAR and OPS+ tell a different story.  Still, I tend to be skeptical of homeruns despite the park normalization of OPS+, especially at parks like Wrigley.  I checked my hunch, and I did find a major point in Boyer's favor.  Santo seems to be largely a product of Wrgley field.  Check out his home/road splits:
Home: .296 / .383/ .522
Road:   .257/ .342/ .406

And its not exactly a secret why he had such a split.  Santo hit 216 home runs at home and only 126 on the road.  If he hit homeruns on the road like he did at home his road stats would be ~.279/  .361/ .494.  To give you an idea of how monumental of a home/road split that is compare it to Jim Rice who was maligned for being a product of Fenway park.  If i understand B-R correctly it has Rice with a 15% swing and Santo with a 18% swing.

Now, compare that to Boyer:
Home: .298/ .357/ .480
Road:  .277/ .340/ .443

I don't have a tool to adjust these splts across eras, but I am guessing if you did, Santo and Boyer would be very similar on the road.  To me that is strong evidence to support doubletruck's hypothesis... they were very similar and are both deserving of induction (or lack thereof).  I still think Santo was the better player, but this exercise makes me think it is a much closer comparison that I previously thought.

Santo was in a hitters ballpark and he was a popular player on a big market team with passionate fans. that's a good recipe for being overrated.

Yes, Santo was in a hitters ballpark and played mostly in day games at home.  Just want to check something...

NL 1946-1964, Boyer's prime.  League averages around .260/.325/.400.  Boyer on the road is roughly  +.017 / +.015 / +.043

NL 1963-1972, Santo's prime.  League averages around .250/.315/.375.  Santo on the road is roughly  +.007 / +.037 / +.031

I'll take Santo's road performance, but it's not a blowout and you could argue either way.  It seems pretty clear that the slugging advantage is entirely singles.  I'll note that, like most players (probably moreso than most), Boyer seems to have enjoyed hitting at home as well.

One other note: Everyone not on the Cubs gets to have Wrigley games in their Road splits.  Cubs players do not.  It's itsy-bitsy, but it's there.

To add: "I don't have a tool to adjust these splts across eras, but I am guessing if you did, Santo and Boyer would be very similar on the road."

Maybe so... but I don't want to move into the territory where half the games don't count.  I'm all for advanced analysis, but there's a point that (I think) James and Neyer and a couple of other guys have been making the last couple of years, which I'll now butcher for you:

*You can adjust and correct and manipulate and it can be the right thing to do.  What you have to watch out for is that, while you're trying to figure out what should have happened on the field, all things being equal, you don't lose track of what ACTUALLY HAPPENED on the field.*

So that's been kind of percolating in the background of in my mind lately.  It even made me wonder if I gave that ***** Jim Rice short shrift. 

Final add: Boyer played in Sportsman's Park, a pretty fine place to hit in its own right.

Like I said, I expected their road performance when adjusted for era to be very similar.  llama, you basically confirmed that.  As for manipulating the numbers and losing sight of what happened on the field, I don't think anyone has.  I never waivered from my opinion that Santo was better, my point was digging past OPS+ and WAR makes the comparison much closer. 

Point taken.  Didn't mean to accuse anyone (except maybe myself, re: Rice) of having that blind spot, just throwing it out there as kind of a cautionary note going forward.  Previous to this discussion I would have drawn a line between Santo and Boyer for the Hall.  Now I have Boyer over the line.  The lack of 3B representation helped with that.  Who's next, Nettles?  Darrell Evans?  Somebody else?

Posted by llamanunts on 2/10/2011 10:31:00 AM (view original):
Point taken.  Didn't mean to accuse anyone (except maybe myself, re: Rice) of having that blind spot, just throwing it out there as kind of a cautionary note going forward.  Previous to this discussion I would have drawn a line between Santo and Boyer for the Hall.  Now I have Boyer over the line.  The lack of 3B representation helped with that.  Who's next, Nettles?  Darrell Evans?  Somebody else?

Two things:

1. If Ron Santo had played anywhere other than 3b, is he a Hall of Famer?  My gut tells me no, but I haven't seen his # compared to anyone  other than Boyer.

2. I feel that the "there's only 9 3b in the HOF" argument is a little bit  disingenuous (although I am not sure that is the right word I am looking for).  Killebrew, Rose, Molitor, Ripken, all these guys played  multiple seasons there; heck even Honus Wagner played 210 games there.

(edit: oops, I forgot Rose isn't in)

Also, Chipper Jones will likely get in 2015.

Without attempting any true analysis of their respective careers, When they were active, I think Boyer was considered the better of the two. The farther we get from observers who actually witnessed their play, the more we rely on stats, and I am afraid the statistical story painted in wrigley overshadows Busch. I remember Ken Boyer as one hitter opposing teams did not want to see in the clutch, he was, at least by the NY Mets announcers, regarded as the best with the game on the line. He had some monsterous big hits in the '64 WS. I, personally, regard Ken Boyer as one of the most under rated players of his era.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/10/2011 12:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by llamanunts on 2/10/2011 10:31:00 AM (view original):
Point taken.  Didn't mean to accuse anyone (except maybe myself, re: Rice) of having that blind spot, just throwing it out there as kind of a cautionary note going forward.  Previous to this discussion I would have drawn a line between Santo and Boyer for the Hall.  Now I have Boyer over the line.  The lack of 3B representation helped with that.  Who's next, Nettles?  Darrell Evans?  Somebody else?

Two things:

1. If Ron Santo had played anywhere other than 3b, is he a Hall of Famer?  My gut tells me no, but I haven't seen his # compared to anyone  other than Boyer.

2. I feel that the "there's only 9 3b in the HOF" argument is a little bit  disingenuous (although I am not sure that is the right word I am looking for).  Killebrew, Rose, Molitor, Ripken, all these guys played  multiple seasons there; heck even Honus Wagner played 210 games there.

(edit: oops, I forgot Rose isn't in)

Also, Chipper Jones will likely get in 2015.

I am unsure if the first question is fair...  You might get a "no" if you asked the same question of most HoF 2b, 3b, SS and perhaps CFers.

As for the second question, 3rd base is the least represented position in the HoF because it is in the middle of the defensive spectrum (at least in modern times).  If a 3rd baseman really can rake, he often gets moved to a COf spot or 1st base as to concentrate on offense.  If he is a truely elite defender there is a good chance he'd be moved to (or slotted) at SS.  The same thing happens to CFers, but it is less noticable since the transition to a COf spot is less noticable.

BTW, you can also add Jackie Robinson to the list of HoF 3rd basemen.