Talk:Ron Santo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Broadcasting: Charming or Annoying[edit]

The section on his broadcasting career doesn't site any sources except one to prove that he is in fact the color man for Cubs Radio. I think all of the stuff about his charming sense of humor should be taken out because in real life, he's totally annoying as an anouncer. Whatever you think of his "sense of humor" it doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.146.85.116 (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that his "charming sense of humor" should be removed, even though I completely agree with it -- whether you find Santo "totally annoying" or "charming and lovable" is obviously a matter of taste. He is, however, indisputably very popular among Cubs fans worldwide. Tempest67 02:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever people feel about Ron, annoying or charming, that statement is one, an opinion, and two, unsourced. Two large reasons to get rid of the section. If you want to talk about his style, i.e. the grumbling and the rambling and the forgetfulness, link to news stories and audiofiles don't just put your opinion in. - 66.104.45.194 (talk · contribs) 19:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of just removing it you could find some references on both sides and add them as quoted citations that some people find him charming and some find him annoying. Have a balanced 50/50, equally weighted, section. Just deleting content, especially from an IP address, without other constructive edits makes you appear to be a vandal and gives you very little credibility with contributors who login and spend countless hours making constructive, quality, edits. ~ WikiDon (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a disinterested person coming across this page cold, I'd offer that the fact that he was an announcer is Encyclopedic. That shouldn't be removed. If his style truly was unique and he was known for it, then perhaps a mention that he had a unique style (if its really noteworthy) is in order. What people thought about his style doesn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.183.28 (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a fan myself, to me he could be both annoying and charming. It's fair to say that his approach was as a Cubs rooter, emotional as much as analytical. He provided a good counterbalance to the straightforward style of his play-by-play companion, Pat Hughes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hall of Fame[edit]

Can someone out there cite this sentence from the Hall of Fame section on Ron Santo? The reader can't tell if this is a quote from a baseball authority or not:

Despite his numbers away from the Friendly Confines of Wrigley Field, Santo was a great all-around player and in 1964, was described as "arguably the best active player in baseball".

This guy should get into the Hall of Fame - (CFIF 22:20, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC))

Hands Down, #10 Ron Santo belongs in the hall of fame. He played the game the right way. I'd be happy to walk my children through the exhibits in Canton and tell them about Ron Santo. - User:192.122.250.250 01:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe Cooperstown. d:) Wahkeenah 01:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He might belong in Canton, not sure what he did for football, but he definetly DOES NOT belong in Cooperstown. .277 AVG is nowhere near Hall-Worthy, unless you smack 500-HRs. Lets compare his #'s to someone still playing: Derek Jeter.
Santo
G AB H 2B 3B HR R RBI SB AVG
2,243 8,143 2,254 365 67 342 1,138 1,331 35 .277
Jeter
G AB H 2B 3B HR R RBI SB AVG
1,679 6,790 2,150 347 50 183 1,277 860 249 .317
For someone with under 500 HR's you need JETER numbers to get in the hall!!! Other than HR's Jeter will have passed Santo in every stat by the time he reaches 15 years. Also, these are Jeter's Post-season stats, sorry Ron another thing keeping him from the Hall is the fact that if he make's it his team would have multiple HOF'rs, but 0 Postseason appearances.
Jeter Postseason:
G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI AVG SB
119 478 85 150 22 3 17 48 .314 16
No Hall for Santo, character CAN keep you outta the Hall, but it should NEVER get you in. You must have the #'s and he falls short in HR,HITS,SB, and AVG......... He may get in as an announcer though. (Best in the buisiness) - 24.136.215.85 (talk · contribs) 19:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're a complete idiot comparing a SS from 95-present to a third basement from the 60s, but, more importantly, this isn't the place for said discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.217.13 (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brooks Robinson's batting numbers were even less impressive than Santo's. Santo had a fine career as a hitter, but was primarily one of the top third basemen in the game. Unfortunately, defense is typically ignored in HoF voting. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, Wikipedia is not a forum. This type of discussion is against Wiki policy (even for discussion/talk pages). See here: WP:NOTFORUM JeremyWJ (talk) 07:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting comparing numbers from an era when "enhanced performance" was not spoken about with a player with a live threatening illness who still was able to be near the top of the lists —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.67.6.14 (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa, I am breaking Wiki rules by writing this signed comment. The unsigned comments above arguing against Santo for HOF are moronic. Yes Jeter is an obvious HOFer, althought his Gold Glove in 2010 was a pathetic joke, at present he is just about the worst fielder among MLB starting shortstops. The Yankees were also pathetic in 2010, as they are every year they do not win the World Series, considering their payroll and the number of cheating juicers (A-Rod, Pettitte, Clemens, Giambi) they have employed. I write all of this just to tweak the simpleton who wrote the moronic unsigned comment above. All of which is irrelevant to Santo.

When Santo was eligible for BBWAA voting for the HOF, there were 7 3Bs in the HOF. Then and now, there were and are fewer 3Bs in the HOF than any other position. By ANY objective measure, Santo was clearly superior to 5 of those 7 3Bs. Bill James (the guru) clearly supports this point. Eventually, 3 more 3Bs (Brett, Schmidt and Boggs) were elected who are superior to Santo. Brooks Robinson was also elected: Santo vs. Robby is a close call. So now, Santo is better than 5 incumbent 3Bs, he is lesser than 5 others, and virtually even with one more. Santo is the 6th or 7th best 3B of all time. This point is almost inarguable once you examine the factual record. And I will leave aside his human qualities.

By any objective measure, he is obviously a worthy HOFer. He was held back at first by historical circumstance, and later by the arrogance and cronyism of many incumbent HOFers on the Veterans Committee. To say he is not worthy of the HOF is to reveal one of (1) good-faith ignorance (just didn't know the facts but wish I had), or (2) intentional ignorance and simple bias ("Tell your statistics to shut up, I just don't like him"). Both are pathetic excuses for a truly unjust decision. Jrgilb (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Club" stats[edit]

As someone who thinks Santo obviously belongs in the HOF, I've removed the silly comparison to Mike Schmidt: yes, they're the only two to have 300 HR and 5 Gold Gloves, but Schmidt's having a batting average 10 points below Santo's "in an era noted for weaker pitching" smells of non-NPOV, given Schmidt's other 5 Gold Gloves, his 200+ homers beyond Santo's, and his never having called the Friendly Confines his home park. (No need to mention Schmidt's 3 MVPs, so I won't. Well, not a lot.) Santo was far too good a player to require bogus comparisons like the "300-homers-and-5-third-base-gold-gloves-club" stuff. He was the real deal, and doesn't need anybody ragging on Mike Schmidt for him. RogerLustig 03:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Chick Hafey belongs in the Hall, Ronnie certainly does. You're right that comparing Schmidt with Santo is silly. It's like comparing Ty Cobb with... well, Chick Hafey. Wahkeenah 03:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retired Numbers[edit]

Ryne Sandberg has also had his number retired by the Cubs, but this article does not mention that. Only that three previous players have had said honor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.197.19.242 (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It is mentioned in the sidebar under the awards section. Its the last one. JeremyWJ (talk) 03:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about Ron Santo. Ryne Sandberg's career is not relevant to the subject of the article.Orsoni (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

I removed a couple of blatant POV statements from the article already. There are probably more. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More like "editorial comments". His last year, with the White Sox, was not fun - but he was pretty much done by then anyway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Santo was a pretty honest/blunt guy. He might have been the first too admit he didn't like his stay on the south side. Anyway, are there any other remaining POV issues you can identify? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article certainly isn't clean, but I don't see any neutrality issues. Barring any other identifications of neutrality, I move we remove the neutrality tag.122.172.157.161 (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I say zap it. If the OP can find any more, he could reinstate the tag, or better yet simply neutralize the problems as he did with the ones he found initially. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ibid. Done. Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2nd or 3rd?[edit]

Is this[1] a reliable source? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Daily Herald (Arlington Heights) meets our standards for reliability. I think this edit[2] is fine except I would put a hidden comment by the deathdate to explain the discrepancy. Otherwise, we'll have lot of well-meaning editors constantly changing the date base to the 2nd. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Citations are usually discouraged in the summary paragraph, but when there are issues about a particular fact, such as a birth or death date, there is often a footnote included to try to fend off edit skirmishes. In this case, maybe a footnote to the section about the death, with a short explanation stating simply that he died at 12:40 on the 3rd, and that "many" media outlets either labeled it the 2nd or said "Thursday night" or "overnight", the latter both being true but ambiguous. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made the change. Feel free to improve upon it. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also questionable is using a blog as a source for the last sentence in the introductory paragraph. The same sentence uses a weasel word in claiming that "He is widely regarded today as one of the best ballplayers not to have been admitted to the Hall."Orsoni (talk) 09:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Post retirement"[edit]

This section header implies there was something AFTER retirement; more correctly, "In retirement" he did such & such.

& BTW, someone w/ more recent knowledge than I could give us the particulars, but "post retirement" Santo was a businessman; which is why he was almost 20 years in retirement before he became a broadcaster. In fact, he was still playing when he became a businessman.

The Chicago press, I remember (as a teen Cub fan in the 'burbs during the 60s), gave a good of space to Santo's business ventures: that any athlete could possibly have interests out of uniform was novel. Santo's "The Pro's Pizza" was sold by the slice @Wrigley for some years before Santo retired & was advertised on local Chi. TV (@least on WGN). BubbleDine (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Era Committee (not "Veterans Committee") elected Ron Santo to HOF[edit]

(Golden Era, 1947 to 1972)
Golden Era Committee: Article HOF site Reference #39, Retrieved December 2011: elected Santo to HOF on Dec. 5, 2011. There is no longer a "Veterans Committee" since the beginning of 2011.[[3]YahwehSaves (talk) 06:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ron Santo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ron Santo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Date of death[edit]

I think there is some confusion regarding Santo's death date. Check out the Daily Herald reference right after the death date in the body of the article. That article provides convincing evidence that he died on 12/3/10 (namely, that his immediate family members saw him alive at 12:30 AM on the 3rd). I know that a lot of sources characterize his death as occurring on 12/2, but I think the source addresses the issue well enough that we shouldn't perpetuate the mistake. Maybe we can add an explanatory footnote to the dates in the lead and/or infobox so that no one gets too confused. Thoughts? EricEnfermero (Talk) 18:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Santo + Arizona= Latino?[edit]

Wiki lists his nationality on google search as "American"..well,we all are. Born in Arizona with a Hispanic surname. So,what was he? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:4100:17A5:40AE:1F73:64E6:AD1 (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ron Santo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ron Santo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article says that he is "second to Matthews" with .464 slugging average. Even if we only consider those third basemen that played over 2,000 games, there are 9 (including Matthews) that have a higher career slugging average than Santo.[edit]

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_3B.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1600:1830:8C5:5D60:8E72:7E08 (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ron_Santo&oldid=1206883697"