"Ohhh...Geez!"

So the pompous old men on the Veterans Committee--the same pompous old men who believe Bill Mazeroski is a Hall of Famer--passed on the everyone's favorite Square-D Electronics spokesman Ron Santo yet again. And as a Cubs fan whose uncle was once driven home from Wrigley by Santo when he was thirteen (true story folks), I'd feel I was neglecting my duty if I didn't complain.

I guess what amazes me about Santo's repeated snubs is that it so plainly contradicts most criteria used by Hall of Fame voters--even the bad ones. Lots of All-Star appearances--he has those. Best at his position during his prime--he was that. Excelled on both offense and defense--he did that. Reputation as a "gritty" player--he had that too. The one bad criterion he doesn't pass--postseason performance. Of course, if a voter counts team accomplishment against a player for Hall of Fame candidacy--and many voters do--he should have his privileges stripped. But life ain't fair.

As far as statistics, Santo's are pleasing to all tastes. Tons of walks (in an era when walking was rarely encouraged) and RBIs--those are numbers both Earl Weaver and Dusty "It's called hitting, not walking" Baker can appreciate. They may not be Willie Mays, but they are Joe Morgan.

It really does make you wonder--how much is the voting process skewed by personal grudges, or at least personal distaste. A lot of Santo's contemporaries thought he was a brash jerk; Mazeroski was everyone's darling because he was a gamer and a glueguy...and clutch!

But for all of Santo's qualifications, one factor should never enter the argument. And that's his diabetes. I realize that many writers bring it up merely to augment his case with dramatic flair or emotional appeal. But strictly regarding his qualifications, overcoming diabetes to excell at baseball--while incredible--should be viewed no differently than, say, injury struggles, below-average eyesight, or anything else that hinders one's ability to play baseball. When a writer tries to use Santo's diabetes as a criterion for his induction or as a means to rescale his numbers, it devalues Santo's accomplishments, undermines the argument, and--worst of all--patronizes Santo.

If Santo's as humble a guy as everyone says, he probably doesn't get too annoyed by the frequent allusions to his condition (after all, it does bring attention to his charity). At the same time, I'm sure he doesn't want to be a charity case himself. Like everyone else, he just wants to be rightly acknowledged for being really good at playing baseball. Fortunately, that mysterious upward trend by which retired guys get better with time is on his side right now. Let's hope it continues for one more round of voting.