David Ortiz, Elder Batsman

Jul 10, 2002
4,279
Behind
And just to be clear ... I said that because he was arguably the most important piece of those teams.  So if you are on a team that's winning a lot of things, there must be a ton of good players.  Yet, he was the man.  On teams with players like Manny, Schilling, Pedro, Millar (kidding!).
 
(that's slightly different than the Jeter "he's got 4 rings" argument).
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
NatetheGreat said:
 
Being a major part of some great teams and iconic moments will help put him over the top if he can make a really strong borderline case, but I don't think he's there yet.
 
Agreed. But he could add hugely to the "iconic moments" portfolio over the next 6-7 weeks. Willie Stargell probably had a borderline HoF case in September 1979; two months later he was a near-lock. Ortiz doesn't have quite as impressive an overall resume (yet), but he's got a couple of years to fix that.
 

Niastri

Member
SoSH Member
Stargell and McGriff are two guys who stand to be very close career number parallels to Ortiz.  The difference is that McGriff was a very solid playoff performer, but Stargell was an all time performer in his last World Series.
 
 
Other than raw numbers, who does Ortiz more closely resemble?
 
This postseason could turn Ortiz from an also ran to a sure fire HOF all by itself, regardless of the next two to three seasons.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Jim Rice is in the Hall of Fame, right?  I have to believe that he would have had negative ratings in any of the advanced defensive metrics; by Bill James metrics his defense is so bad that James swears some platoon player for the Yankees was more valuable.  So, the DH-only argument shouldn't be a factor in the comparison.
 
Jim Rice had 2 years in his career with an OPS+ above 150; and 2 others with OPS+ of 141 and 147.
 
David Ortiz has 2 seasons above 160, 4 additional seasons between 150 and 160, and 2 more seasons between 140 and 150.  Ortiz has more HR's already; he will have more RBI's by the end of next April, his OBP is 30 points higher compensating for 10 points of batting average.
 
I don't like the argument that "Here's a borderline HOFer and this guy is a little better."  This argument is more like "Here's a borderline HOFer and this guy blows him out of the water."
 

jscola85

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
1,305
I think people need to remember he's not done yet.  Edgar Martinez was a feared hitter through his age-40 season.  If Papi can put up numbers even close to what Edgar did in his last three years, that's an additional 60+ HR, 400+ hits, and 250+ RBI, which would give him ~485 HRs, 2500 hits and 1700 RBI.  And the way his batting average has been the last three years, it wouldn't shock me if he ticked up his career average above .290 when all is said and done.
 
Is that enough?  500 is obviously a "magic" number in a way, and he's facing an uphill battle at DH, but I do think, like Schilling, he's going to get some added love for his postseason performance.
 

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
14,315
HillysLastWalk said:
(that's slightly different than the Jeter "he's got 4 rings" argument).
 
Sorry to sidetrack, but are you arguing that Jeter needs a "four rings" argument to put him over the top as a HoFer? Seems like 3,300 hits gets you in even if you play for KC.
 
Jul 10, 2002
4,279
Behind
Absolutely not.
 
I'm just saying that the argument used, way back during the shortstop debate (Nomar/Arod/Jeter) was, "he had four rings".  Which, of course, is a silly argument.  But it was used to perceive value over other players.  Derek Jeter, on the Pittsburgh Pirates or Kansas City Royals would be ringless.  I didn't want there to be the notion I was using a "2 rings" argument for Ortiz.  I was just explaining that Ortiz, when you look at some ridiculous teams he was on, was "the man".  That's pretty good for someone who played with Pedro, Manny, Schilling, and Crespo (kidding!)
 
But regardless of all that, Derek Jeter is a first ballot Hall of Famer.  That's a no doubter.  And conceivably will compete for highest percentage ever.
 

brs3

sings praises of pinstripes
SoSH Member
May 20, 2008
5,200
Jackson Heights, NYC
I'd love to see Papi's hit spray chart for 2010 - present, and then for that period before & after the all-star break. It seems he hits for power early, then keeps hitting for average the rest of the way. He's such a different hitter than he was in 2004. He almost seems Manny-esque in his ability to hit mistakes and work counts. He just seems to have evolved into a complete hitter.
 
If this late career resurgence continues, maybe he makes the entire HoF discussion moot. It'll be an uphill climb to keep his current pace for 3-4 more years.
 

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
14,315
HillysLastWalk said:
Absolutely not.
 
I'm just saying that the argument used, way back during the shortstop debate (Nomar/Arod/Jeter) was, "he had four rings".  Which, of course, is a silly argument.  But it was used to perceive value over other players.  Derek Jeter, on the Pittsburgh Pirates or Kansas City Royals would be ringless.  I didn't want there to be the notion I was using a "2 rings" argument for Ortiz.  I was just explaining that Ortiz, when you look at some ridiculous teams he was on, was "the man".  That's pretty good for someone who played with Pedro, Manny, Schilling, and Crespo (kidding!)
 
But regardless of all that, Derek Jeter is a first ballot Hall of Famer.  That's a no doubter.  And conceivably will compete for highest percentage ever.
 
Ok. That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. 
 
While I agree with your argument regarding rings not making a player better or worse than another, I do think being a high-profile player in a high-profile organization helps your case when voting time comes around. Sometimes that starpower comes from having rings, sometimes just from being a big personality in addition to being a great player. At the point, Ortiz is a well-established national celebrity with a trademarked nickname and mainstream-consciousness events like the Boston Strong swearing. That's a thumb on the scale independent of his rings. 
 
For as great a hitter as Edgar Martinez was, he was not a mainstream-consciousness player. Never a superstar of Ortiz's caliber. 
 
When you add Papi's profile to his peak years (most home runs by a Red Sox player in a single season, etc.) to his counting stats (getting closer to 500 will be important, though) to his rings, I think he's in there eventually. 
 

NatetheGreat

New Member
Aug 27, 2007
619
MyDaughterLovesTomGordon said:
 
Ok. That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. 
 
While I agree with your argument regarding rings not making a player better or worse than another, I do think being a high-profile player in a high-profile organization helps your case when voting time comes around. Sometimes that starpower comes from having rings, sometimes just from being a big personality in addition to being a great player. At the point, Ortiz is a well-established national celebrity with a trademarked nickname and mainstream-consciousness events like the Boston Strong swearing. That's a thumb on the scale independent of his rings. 
 
 
 
This. Its the hall of fame. The word "fame" is right there in the title. Absolute contribution to winning baseball games is certainly the primary and most important criteria, but career success (including, yes, being an important member of good teams), memorable moments/accomplishments, and overall cultural relevance have always been and likely always will be factors as well. Being an icon with a bunch of rings won't get you in if your stats are nowhere near, and playing for lousy teams in obscurity won't keep you out if your numbers are amazing, but for those players who lie between those extremes, stuff like "played a key part in winning multiple championships" and "are one of the only players who even the most casual fans can instantly name and recognize"  can definitely help a hall of fame case.
 

Niastri

Member
SoSH Member
Plympton91 said:
Jim Rice is in the Hall of Fame, right?  I have to believe that he would have had negative ratings in any of the advanced defensive metrics; by Bill James metrics his defense is so bad that James swears some platoon player for the Yankees was more valuable.  So, the DH-only argument shouldn't be a factor in the comparison.
 
Jim Rice had 2 years in his career with an OPS+ above 150; and 2 others with OPS+ of 141 and 147.
 
David Ortiz has 2 seasons above 160, 4 additional seasons between 150 and 160, and 2 more seasons between 140 and 150.  Ortiz has more HR's already; he will have more RBI's by the end of next April, his OBP is 30 points higher compensating for 10 points of batting average.
 
I don't like the argument that "Here's a borderline HOFer and this guy is a little better."  This argument is more like "Here's a borderline HOFer and this guy blows him out of the water."
 
Unfortunately, your post reads more like "Rice shouldn't be in" and not "Ortiz should be in the Hall of Fame."
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
So after last night's HR, Ortiz has joined a very short and distinguished list of guys who have logged at least 30 HR, 35 doubles, 100 RBI and a >150 OPS+ at age 37.
 
Short and distinguished as in, he's the only one on it.

 
 

drbretto

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
12,154
Concord, NH
The man's a Hall of Famer. Will he get voted in? I think eventually, but I don't care. 
 
I think a lot of you give the writers too much credit. Not many of them are calculating numbers like you are. They're going by gut first, then using the basic numbers to confirm it. You've all been watching baseball long enough that you don't need a protractor to know a Hall of Famer when you see one. Troy Tulowitzki, Hall of Famer. Justin Verlander, Hall of Famer. Ichiro Suzuki, Hall of Famer. 
 
Some players start off likable enough to be on that "Hall of Fame track" until they trail off on the numbers enough not to be included (Nomar). Pedroia could be an example of this in a few years. There was this "future HoF" vibe to him ever since his MVP season. If his numbers are close enough by the end of his career, he's in. If they're not, he's on the bubble. 
 
Others are forgotten gems like Ortiz who come on so strong over the last half of their career that you are forced to notice. Minnesota mismanaged Ortiz. Those numbers should be completely forgotten. He was Ortiz from the beginning and they didn't let him be Ortiz. They wanted him to be Ichiro. I saw a clip on MLB network earlier this season from an old Home Run derby held at a minor league park. In that clip, you could see Alex Rodriguez and Ken Griffey Jr marveling over the massive bombs this minor leaguer was hitting. "Who is this guy?" they'd laugh to each other with faces like kids watching a major leaguer who happened to show up at their little league game to put on a show. That guy, hitting bombs with the exact same swing and swagger as he has today? 18-year-old David Ortiz. 
 
If you had to pick a single player to represent the past decade of MLB, who else could you pick besides Ortiz? He's been an ambassador off the field and an unstoppable force on it. Who knows what numbers he may have put up if the Twins organization didn't try to teach him how to bunt? Who cares? He's been the face of baseball for the last decade and one of the best and most feared hitters during that same span. He was a huge part of two Red Sox World Series championships, an impossible idea before he was picked up off the scrap heap, and is still going strong, having one of the best age-37 seasons in the history of baseball.
 
He's got two things that will keep him from being first-ballot. The PED issue, which is absurd unless he gets caught with something in his system post-2003 (all pre-2003 PED usage should seriously just be swept under a rug. It was an encouraged and unpunished practice until people started making a mockery of the game) and the DH issue which is absurd to the point that it actually pisses me off some times. Why some shitty first baseman who forces himself on the field should be considered more valuable than one flexible enough to be able keep up his production while letting someone better do it is beyond me. Which player helps your team win more ballgames? And when he's been needed on the field, he hasn't been completely incompetent, either.
 
So yeah, David Ortiz is a Hall of Famer if I've ever seen one. And it really doesn't matter to me if the writers agree, but some day, ultimately, I think they will.
 
Super late edit: I totally meant to say verlander instead of Jeter in that first paragraph but drew a blank when typing this up.
 

CarolinaBeerGuy

Don't know him from Adam
SoSH Member
Mar 14, 2006
9,967
Kernersville, NC
drbretto said:
The man's a Hall of Famer. Will he get voted in? I think eventually, but I don't care. 
 
I think a lot of you give the writers too much credit. Not many of them are calculating numbers like you are. They're going by gut first, then using the basic numbers to confirm it. You've all been watching baseball long enough that you don't need a protractor to know a Hall of Famer when you see one. Troy Tulowitzki, Hall of Famer. Derek Jeter, Hall of Famer. Ichiro Suzuki, Hall of Famer. 
 
Some players start off likable enough to be on that "Hall of Fame track" until they trail off on the numbers enough not to be included (Nomar). Pedroia could be an example of this in a few years. There was this "future HoF" vibe to him ever since his MVP season. If his numbers are close enough by the end of his career, he's in. If they're not, he's on the bubble. 
 
Others are forgotten gems like Ortiz who come on so strong over the last half of their career that you are forced to notice. Minnesota mismanaged Ortiz. Those numbers should be completely forgotten. He was Ortiz from the beginning and they didn't let him be Ortiz. They wanted him to be Ichiro. I saw a clip on MLB network earlier this season from an old Home Run derby held at a minor league park. In that clip, you could see Alex Rodriguez and Ken Griffey Jr marveling over the massive bombs this minor leaguer was hitting. "Who is this guy?" they'd laugh to each other with faces like kids watching a major leaguer who happened to show up at their little league game to put on a show. That guy, hitting bombs with the exact same swing and swagger as he has today? 18-year-old David Ortiz. 
 
If you had to pick a single player to represent the past decade of MLB, who else could you pick besides Ortiz? He's been an ambassador off the field and an unstoppable force on it. Who knows what numbers he may have put up if the Twins organization didn't try to teach him how to bunt? Who cares? He's been the face of baseball for the last decade and one of the best and most feared hitters during that same span. He was a huge part of two Red Sox World Series championships, an impossible idea before he was picked up off the scrap heap, and is still going strong, having one of the best age-37 seasons in the history of baseball.
 
He's got two things that will keep him from being first-ballot. The PED issue, which is absurd unless he gets caught with something in his system post-2003 (all pre-2003 PED usage should seriously just be swept under a rug. It was an encouraged and unpunished practice until people started making a mockery of the game) and the DH issue which is absurd to the point that it actually pisses me off some times. Why some shitty first baseman who forces himself on the field should be considered more valuable than one flexible enough to be able keep up his production while letting someone better do it is beyond me. Which player helps your team win more ballgames? And when he's been needed on the field, he hasn't been completely incompetent, either.
 
So yeah, David Ortiz is a Hall of Famer if I've ever seen one. And it really doesn't matter to me if the writers agree, but some day, ultimately, I think they will.
Here's the clip from the home run derby you mentioned above:

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/71361/video-alex-rodriguez-ken-griffey-jr-and-lean-papi-ortiz-in-1996-home-run-derby

It didn't work on my iPhone, so here's another link:

http://m.kirotv.com/videos/news/exclusive-video-alex-rodriguez-ken-griffey-jr-and/v8WHH/
 

drbretto

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
12,154
Concord, NH
That's the one. Even that guy just casually dropping "David Ortiz, future Hall of Famer" like it was obvious. (could have done without the comments at the end though)
 

glasspusher

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
9,973
Oakland California
I have seen a consistent bias on the part of sportswriters to players who have come up to the major leagues playing so-so, then finding themselves and going on a tear for the rest of their career. Examples include Sandy Koufax, Dwight Evans, Yogi Berra and Dale Murphy. Players who come up playing great seem to be taken more for granted by writers (and possibly fans). Examples include Darryl Stawberry, Jim Rice, Wade Boggs and hey, even Teddy Ballgame.
 
Papi falls into the former category, and I think this might help his case for the HOF (although it didn't help Murphy enough!)
 

terrisus

formerly: imgran
SoSH Member
Savin Hillbilly said:
Makes me wonder what his numbers would look like if he had developed a little quicker (or alternatively, if the Twins had realized what they had a little sooner). 
 
Don't think it's all on the Twins. I mean, we had him platooning at DH with Jeremy Giambi and 1st Base with Cabin Mirror in his first year with us.
 

CoRP

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2007
9,457
The Epicenter
glasspusher said:
I have seen a consistent bias on the part of sportswriters to players who have come up to the major leagues playing so-so, then finding themselves and going on a tear for the rest of their career. Examples include Sandy Koufax, Dwight Evans, Yogi Berra and Dale Murphy. Players who come up playing great seem to be taken more for granted by writers (and possibly fans). Examples include Darryl Stawberry, Jim Rice, Wade Boggs and hey, even Teddy Ballgame.
 
Papi falls into the former category, and I think this might help his case for the HOF (although it didn't help Murphy enough!)
...or Evans...
 
M

MentalDisabldLst

Guest

Soxfan in Fla

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 30, 2001
7,187
Savin Hillbilly said:
So after last night's HR, Ortiz has joined a very short and distinguished list of guys who have logged at least 30 HR, 35 doubles, 100 RBI and a >150 OPS+ at age 37.
 
Short and distinguished as in, he's the only one on it.
Wow. Seriously? That's incredible. No one in the PED era or someone in the Golden Era like Teddy Ballgame did that. Wow. A,axing season by Papi.
 

Time to Mo Vaughn

RIP Dernell
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
7,279
Savin Hillbilly said:
So after last night's HR, Ortiz has joined a very short and distinguished list of guys who have logged at least 30 HR, 35 doubles, 100 RBI and a >150 OPS+ at age 37.
 
Short and distinguished as in, he's the only one on it.

 
 
Stats like this are pretty stupid, but for whatever reason they've become a huge trend on Sportscenter. Just combine a few random categories until you've got somebody who is in a category of their own or with a few other HOF type players, but ultimately meaningless.
 
Bonds in his age 37 season had 46 HRs, 110 RBIs, and a 268 OPS+, but doesn't fit this criteria because he only had 31 doubles. Why was this criteria 35 doubles instead of 30 or 30 HRs instead of 35? Because of Vanian cherry picking. It's not like Ortiz had a better age 37 season than Bonds did.
 
And at age 39 Bonds had 45 HRs, 101 RBIs, a 263 OPS+ but only 27 2Bs. 
 

terrisus

formerly: imgran
SoSH Member
Dernells Casket n Flagon said:
 
Stats like this are pretty stupid, but for whatever reason they've become a huge trend on Sportscenter. Just combine a few random categories until you've got somebody who is in a category of their own or with a few other HOF type players, but ultimately meaningless.
 
Bonds in his age 37 season had 46 HRs, 110 RBIs, and a 268 OPS+, but doesn't fit this criteria because he only had 31 doubles. Why was this criteria 35 doubles instead of 30 or 30 HRs instead of 35? Because of Vanian cherry picking. It's not like Ortiz had a better age 37 season than Bonds did.
 
And at age 39 Bonds had 45 HRs, 101 RBIs, a 263 OPS+ but only 27 2Bs. 
 
Plus, OPS+ is adjusted, so saying it "didn't happen in the PED era" doesn't mean too much, since it's all relative.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Dernells Casket n Flagon said:
 
Stats like this are pretty stupid, but for whatever reason they've become a huge trend on Sportscenter. Just combine a few random categories until you've got somebody who is in a category of their own or with a few other HOF type players, but ultimately meaningless.
 
Bonds in his age 37 season had 46 HRs, 110 RBIs, and a 268 OPS+, but doesn't fit this criteria because he only had 31 doubles. Why was this criteria 35 doubles instead of 30 or 30 HRs instead of 35? Because of Vanian cherry picking. It's not like Ortiz had a better age 37 season than Bonds did.
 
And at age 39 Bonds had 45 HRs, 101 RBIs, a 263 OPS+ but only 27 2Bs. 
 
Nothing in my post suggested, or was meant to suggest, that Ortiz has had the best age-37 offensive season of all time. Just that he has managed to do a combination of things--all reasonably impressive things, indicative of a pretty high performance level--that no 37-year-old had managed to do before. 
 
If we want to rank Ortiz' 2013 among the all-time best age 37 seasons, here's where he sits for some of summarizing kind of stats that BBref allows one to search on:
 
OPS+: 6th
Runs Created: 14th
WAR Runs Batting: 10th
Batting Runs: 9th
 
(I have no idea what the difference is between the last two, but the top 10s are nearly identical, so I'm assuming it's trivial.)
 
So, no, it's not the best age-37 hitting performance of all time. But it appears to be right up there.
 

terrisus

formerly: imgran
SoSH Member
Savin Hillbilly said:
 
Nothing in my post suggested, or was meant to suggest, that Ortiz has had the best age-37 offensive season of all time. Just that he has managed to do a combination of things--all reasonably impressive things, indicative of a pretty high performance level
 
As mentioned earlier, ESPN loves to do stuff like that.
 
Hits, Walks, and Stolen bases are all important statistics.
190 hits, 100 walks, and 30 stolen bases are all good amounts of them.
 
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/9743831/mike-trout-los-angeles-angels-rare-company-190th-hit
 
Anything that has Ty Cobb and Lenny Dykstra in the same sentence is rather dubious.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,789
Ortiz was sitting on that before Benoit took the mound...
 
His post-season accomplishments are the stuff that future Sox fans will marvel at.  We are truly privileged to have seen it live.
 
 
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
59,411
San Andreas Fault
That was great theatre...Hunter going head over heels into the Sox bullpen, the cop signaling touchdown and the bullpen catcher casually catching the ball.
 

canyoubelieveit

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 8, 2006
7,936
That home run swing is just an absolutely perfectly timed, balanced work of art.  It really couldn't look better if he hit it off a tee.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,801
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
That home run swing is just an absolutely perfectly timed, balanced work of art.  It really couldn't look better if he hit it off a tee.


I love that he swung at a fat first pitch fastball. The Sox need more of that going forward in this series. These guys throw too many first pitch strikes.
 

someoneanywhere

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
canyoubelieveit said:
That home run swing is just an absolutely perfectly timed, balanced work of art.  It really couldn't look better if he hit it off a tee.
Timed, yes. He's sitting red. But I don't think people are appreciating how difficult that pitch is to pull. It's running away from him and it appears downward as it enters the hitting zone. Benoit didn't get it far enough away from him but it's not a meatball by any stretch.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,912
Deep inside Muppet Labs
bsj said:
I love that he swung at a fat first pitch fastball. The Sox need more of that going forward in this series. These guys throw too many first pitch strikes.
 
It was a changeup, at least that's what Ortiz said in the post-game presser. Said he was looking for the change.
 

Dave Stapleton

Just A Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 11, 2001
9,130
Newport, RI
Wasn't a fastball it was a splitter. That's what was so impressive. He had been studying Benoit and was sitting on the split first pitch.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
bsj said:
I love that he swung at a fat first pitch fastball. The Sox need more of that going forward in this series. These guys throw too many first pitch strikes.
 
Not a "fastball" exactly.  Pitchfx has it as a splitter.
 

 
This look at it shows it was consistent with the other splitters he threw, even if it was a bit flat.
 
 

AlNipper49

Huge Member
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 3, 2001
44,917
Mtigawi
David Ortiz is now tied with JD Drew for most career postseason hits which either tied or put the team ahead with 5.  (From Edes' column)
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Dave Stapleton said:
Wasn't a fastball it was a splitter. That's what was so impressive. He had been studying Benoit and was sitting on the split first pitch.
 
To be fair, a splitter and a change up aren't all that different and he may well have been looking for a change, and gotten ahold of it just as well even though it was a splitter.  Especially when the pitch hangs a bit.
 
Either way, it was an impressive bit of hitting.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,960
Maine
AlNipper49 said:
David Ortiz is now tied with JD Drew for most career postseason hits which either tied or put the team ahead with 5.  (From Edes' column)
 
Crazy to think Drew had that many in just 3 years worth of postseason games.  Crazier to think that Ortiz has that few...he had three walk-off hits in 2004 alone.
 

Spacemans Bong

chapeau rose
SoSH Member
Benoit doesn't throw a splitter (or calls it a splitter - obviously there can be some pretty subtle differences in what pitches are). He calls it a changeup.
 
I would rank Papi behind Edgar Martinez, but Papi still has some life in his bat. That sag he had from 2008-2009 seems to be long gone, and if he can keep hitting until he's 40 he will be building a viable mythical Hall of Fame case (provided the Hall still seems to be governed by idiocy regarding steroids).
 

bigyazbread

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2001
517
Woodbury, Connecticut
Red(s)HawksFan said:
 
Crazy to think Drew had that many in just 3 years worth of postseason games.  Crazier to think that Ortiz has that few...he had three walk-off hits in 2004 alone.
The stat is for career post-season games.  Drew played in a total of 8 years of fall ball, the last 3 with the Red Sox.
 

canyoubelieveit

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 8, 2006
7,936
Hold on, that can't be right.  I can think of 6 for Ortiz off the top of my head:
 
1.  The walkoff homerun against the Angels (Jarrod Washburn)
2.  A basehit to put the Sox up 3-2 against the Yankees in game 4 of the 2004 ALCS (El Duque)
3.  The walkoff homerun against Quantrill in game 4
4.  The walkoff hit against Loaiza in game 5
5.  The homerun against Kevin Brown in the first inning of game 7
6.  Last night's grand slam
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
Is there some caveat? Last at bats?

I count 4 walkoffs without thought, and a fifth (alds game 4 off of foulke) late inning hit that took the Sox from behind to ahead, and then the game 7 alcs hr off of brown that put the Sox ahead.

So that's six without a qualifier