This is a couple of questions, with the first being "What qualifies a player to be a Hall of Famer?"
Assuming the player in question qualifies with the minimum standard of ten years, I feel it gets more difficult to decide after that. People generally belong to one of two schools of opinion.
One is that the Hall is for players that are the greatest of all players with little room for even very good players. I am really a member of this group. I think the Hall has been watered down over the years due to favoritism, cronyism, over political correctness, and other reasons. My ideal Hall would probably have 25 to 35 percent less players than it does now.
The second chain of thought that this has led to is that there is room for many excellent players of each era leading to players like Chick Hafey, Jim Rice, Freddie Lindstrom, Bill Mazeroski, Tony Perez, Ross Youngs, Joe Tinker, etc. In other words lower standards as well as successful elections virtually every year and many times multiple additions.
I might not be bothered by this as much if every time someone champions a player, they use the logic that well, Tony Perez is in so why not Jim Rice, and Jim Rice is in so why not Dwight Evans, Dwight Evans is in so why not Jimmie Wynn. Jimmie Wynn is in, so why not Mickey Rivers. In other words, the hall gets more and more watered down. Now I know several of those guys in my example are not in, but I hope you get my point. I want my Hall of Fame to be a very special group and some of the guys getting in are very comparable to men that are left out.
One of the rules of thumb I use for my minimum standard is: Was this player the best player at his position in his league for any length of time. Was he in the top three at his position then for multiple years? Did he lead the league in various counting stats (RBI's, Hrs, hits, wins, ERA, K's etc.) many times and how does he compare with his era peers using the new parameters of performance that are available( OPS, OBP, WAR, WHIP, etc.) Did the player win multiple awards such as Cy Youngs, MVP's, gold gloves, (although these can be somewhat of a joke sometimes). Did the player reach very impressive milestones (3000 hits, 500 HRs, .315 lifetime average, .400 lifetime OBP 300 wins, 3000 K's). Was the player a great all around player at a difficult defensive position, (catcher, ss, centerfielder) All this needs to be taken into account.
I will downgrade a player if he was a DH only, a relief pitcher only, a poor fielder, led the league in grounding into DPs every year or won games on great hitting teams with poor periphrial stats or compiled vast counting numbers because of career length and few if any GREAT years (Harold Baines, for example).
A .300 lifetime average in the 1920's or 1930's over a short career isn't that impressive unless there are other things to take into consideration. Personally I do not think Don Drysdale's stats from the 60's are that over whelming in the context of the time. They say Jim Rice was feared but nothing about his walk totals shows this. Bill Mazeroski might have been the greatest fielding second baseman of all time but his hitting was poor even by 1960's standards and certainly by the great second baseman standards.
After all this, so do I think Ron Santo should be in the Hall of Fame? By the standards already set, considering the era he played in, with him being the NL's best 3rd baseman for multiple years, batting cleanup on a team with two other Hall of Fame hitters I think he is far from the poorest selection already made. Knocking in over 1300 runs in his era is comparable to many , many more in the 90's or 2000's. So yes I feel he should be in the Hall as it now exists. Make a list of all the third basemen in the Hall and he is right in the middle of the one's already enshrined.
