smastroyin said:
Who?
ack in this thread I have a comprehensive list of who has been caught. The only guys that meet this criteria are the biogenisis guys. And, again, they were beating a test for a substance that was not subject to the same rigor in the timeframe (2009ish) as it is now. And those players are all playing a pretty high level even after their suspension and increased testing. So then you have to say "they are still using, just not getting caught" and this gets us into the logical circle I am talking about, where any evidence just gets washed away by "I believe people are using and just can't be caught" or whatever. It's totally pointless to argue so other than re-posting the list I'll leave it to you guys who think that people "have noone to blame but themselves" is not a guilty until proven innocent argument.
Good to see he is improvingsoxhop411 said:CJ Nitkowski @CJNitkowski 5m5 minutes ago
David Ortiz via @steveowens_here
2014: 142G, 518AB, 35HR, 104RBI, 75BB, 95K, .355OBP
2015: 142G, 518AB, 36HR, 104RBI, 75BB, 95K, .355OBP
soxhop411 said:CJ Nitkowski @CJNitkowski 5m5 minutes ago
David Ortiz via @steveowens_here
2014: 142G, 518AB, 35HR, 104RBI, 75BB, 95K, .355OBP
2015: 142G, 518AB, 36HR, 104RBI, 75BB, 95K, .355OBP
tims4wins said:Interesting that his OPS is up 25 points and that his OPS+ is down 3. Is the offensive environment that increased from 2014 to 2015?
This is a poor way to look at the issue. First, Rice was elected in year 15 based almost entirely on the PR efforts of Dick Bresciani, who evangelized for Rice directly to the voters in a way that I doubt can be duplicated in the future. The recent hire of Gordon Edes to "replace" Bresciani is a clear sign the H/W/L ownership group is dedicated to helping Ortiz achieve the honor, but Edes will face an uphill battle for many reasons aside from PEDs: the DH issue, the fact that the numbers aren't all that special when you look at them beside others from the past (and in proper context/era), the near-certainty of a backlash against "magic numbers" that will happen as stats in the current environment continue to plummet back toward a "pitcher's era", and other factors.I know it's a fools errand to compare players and expect some kind of consistency for HOF inclusion, but it seems so odd to me that we could have a Hall that includes Jim Rice while it excludes Ortiz.
He's also maybe the worst player in the Hall, and got there because of voter agendas and a desire to stack the Hall with characters from a by-gone era. Had Papi played in the 30s, he'd have been a lock. Oh wait...he wouldn't have been allowed to play in the 30s, so fuck everything about that shitty, whitewashed era of nostalgia that now helps to define the "standard" of the Hall.Rabbit Maranville played for many years and has great defensive stats. He also was a known funny man. Maybe the latter part makes him like Papi.
Edgar probably won't get in. His trajectory looks pretty bad.However, after that, the case against Martinez is that he’s a DH, and if he can’t get in, then at least a few voters will hold that against Ortiz too.
I find this post a bummer because basically you dismiss all of the arguments that are against you as "crock full of shit" while presenting your own bullshit and rhetoric instead of actual analysis.I'm kinda bummed after reading this thread, because it's chock full of shit like "500 homers is a magic number" while ignoring the context/era in which those 500 homers were racked up. One poster cited some worthwhile numbers, showing that adjusted for context/era, Ortiz is comparable to Jack Clark, who spent the front half of his career in a pitcher's park, in a pitching-dominant era.
Well just speaking for myself I was suggesting that it's magic to voters, not to me. There's a lot to be sad about how the HOF voters operate, but there's also nothing we can do about that.I'm kinda bummed after reading this thread, because it's chock full of shit like "500 homers is a magic number" while ignoring the context/era in which those 500 homers were racked up. One poster cited some worthwhile numbers, showing that adjusted for context/era, Ortiz is comparable to Jack Clark, who spent the front half of his career in a pitcher's park, in a pitching-dominant era.
Agreed that Edgar's trajectory doesn't look good, but the HOF culled the voting ranks considerably this year, with the electorate going from ~650 to ~525. If you haven't covered the game for 10 years, you don't get to vote any longer.Edgar probably won't get in. His trajectory looks pretty bad.
I compare to Tim Raines because Raines is an even bigger travesty than Martinez. At least there are some arguments against Martinez, even if they are bad arguments; there are no arguments against Raines, who should have been in on his first ballot. But Raines will probably get in eventually; he's trending in the right direction, and will probably make the jump on his final year. For Martinez to get in there will have to be some drastic change in voters' attitudes.
But you have to take into account who's voting. Similar to AB's point, how many voters do you think will even look at wRC+? Ortiz beats Edgar in homers, RBIs, runs, hits, doubles, SLG and rings. Edgar beats Ortiz in AVG and OBP. It wouldn't shock me at all if Ortiz gets in but Edgar doesn't even if that isn't fair.I think Papi would have been better off with the older voters, because despite the PED issue his appeal as an HoF candidate is primarily about narrative and post-season heroics and counting stats. Younger, more analytically inclined voters will be hard on him, because his WAR totals are low for an HoF candidate due to the (correctly IMO) extremely high DH replacement level.
If Edgar can't get in, there's no way Ortiz should. Edgar was a significantly better hitter (wRC+ of 147 vs. 138), and Ortiz's ~800 additional PAs (so far) isn't enough additional longevity to offset that.
David Ortiz’s full Hall of Fame case is nuanced. His career numbers fall somewhere between Fred McGriff and Frank Thomas, which puts him right on the border. His extra-base hits total is massive — some of that is Fenway Park. His postseason heroics boost him considerably. His failed drug test will be considered. And yes, he spent almost his entire career at DH. I think you have to throw all of that into a tumbler, shake it up and roll it out. I vote for him.
[snip -- I've read Posnanski now and he reports the PED thing fairly]?At least one BBWAA is on board. Joe Posnanski gives Big Papi a thumbs up:
I don't think that many voters will look at wRC+ specifically, but I do think that as the electorate shifts younger and becomes more sophisticated, I think a lot of them will look at advanced stats more generally, and WAR specifically. And Martinez has a big WAR advantage of about 15-20 more wins (depending on which system you use).But you have to take into account who's voting. Similar to AB's point, how many voters do you think will even look at wRC+? Ortiz beats Edgar in homers, RBIs, runs, hits, doubles, SLG and rings. Edgar beats Ortiz in AVG and OBP. It wouldn't shock me at all if Ortiz gets in but Edgar doesn't even if that isn't fair.
For the record, Law and (and Rob Neyer) will be eligible to vote in three years. So his vote will matter.Keith Law (who does not have a vote) says thumbs down in today's chat:
Adjusted for era and position, it's not a Hall of Fame offensive career.
Asked later about Papi's postseason heroics:
I assume the Hall (I haven't been in decades) has exhibits on the various postseasons. Celebrate him there.
Yeah, because he's "adjusting for position" which is total bullshit. The Pos article sums that up better than I ever could, but it's completely ridiculous that Papi gets penalized in the minds of these people because he's not out there hurting the team on defense. Glad he doesn't get a vote. Edit: If you want to "adjust for position", do it like you would a 2B and compare his numbers to other DH's.Keith Law (who does not have a vote) says thumbs down in today's chat:
Adjusted for era and position, it's not a Hall of Fame offensive career.
Asked later about Papi's postseason heroics:
I assume the Hall (I haven't been in decades) has exhibits on the various postseasons. Celebrate him there.
I see what you're saying but I don't think it's totally fair. How many players were a full-time DH pretty much their entire career, save a handful of interleague games per year? A lot of guys shifted to DH when they got older, or rotated as a DH with other fielders. It's not like there have been 14, and now 15, full-time DHs in the league every year since 1973.If your going to say that having the best or second best career numbers for a DH isn't good enough, then you shouldn't couch your statement in anything but "I don't think a DH should get in.". Given that is Keith Law's position, I am even happier I've never given his site a single click and armed with his opinion on Ortiz, I will continue to ignore it going forward.
If your going to say that having the best or second best career numbers for a DH isn't good enough, then you shouldn't couch your statement in anything but "I don't think a DH should get in.". Given that is Keith Law's position, I am even happier I've never given his site a single click and armed with his opinion on Ortiz, I will continue to ignore it going forward.
Combining that with his famously wrong evaluation of Dustin Pedroia (why I've never bothered to read his opinion on anything else) and we basically just have to write the guy off a Peter King level biased.Except that Keith Law is on the record as saying he believes Edgar Martinez belongs in the HOF. So enjoy those two ideas together.
Having extremely high standards for the position due to relative positional scarcity/high replacement level is not the same as having a categorical "no-DH" rule. There's a reason there have been very few great career DHs: the position has a negative selection bias. If you are a good enough athlete to be a great hitter, you are probably athletic enough to semi-competently field 1B or LF during your peak athleticism years, and if you can field a position semi-competently, it's more valuable for the team to have you do that than it is to play a weaker hitter there instead. The only guys who are career DHs are the guys who can't (due to ability or health) play the field -- not surprisingly this group has very few truly great HoF worthy players.If your going to say that having the best or second best career numbers for a DH isn't good enough, then you shouldn't couch your statement in anything but "I don't think a DH should get in.". Given that is Keith Law's position, I am even happier I've never given his site a single click and armed with his opinion on Ortiz, I will continue to ignore it going forward.
To expand on that, Law's statement is equally valid if you pretend Ortiz was a bad defensive 1st baseman, or a miserable defensive corner outfielder. Ortiz is and was a very good hitter at a position where almost everyone is at least passable with the bat, and you don't have to be a Red Sox hater to believe his contributions didn't really make the cut.I see what you're saying but I don't think it's totally fair. How many players were a full-time DH pretty much their entire career, save a handful of interleague games per year? A lot of guys shifted to DH when they got older, or rotated as a DH with other fielders. It's not like there have been 14, and now 15, full-time DHs in the league every year since 1973.
I think that's sort of backwards in that it presumes you're filling the now-vacated DH spot with a good hitter.Having extremely high standards for the position due to relative positional scarcity/high replacement level is not the same as having a categorical "no-DH" rule. There's a reason there have been very few great career DHs: the position has a negative selection bias. If you are a good enough athlete to be a great hitter, you are probably athletic enough to semi-competently field 1B or LF during your peak athleticism years, and if you can field a position semi-competently, it's more valuable for the team to have you do that than it is to play a weaker hitter there instead. The only guys who are career DHs are the guys who can't (due to ability or health) play the field -- not surprisingly this group has very few truly great HoF worthy players.
Well the issue for determining DH value is the replacement level. Value is always relative. Evaluate them on their offensive stats alone, ok, but ... compared to what? The theory behind the DH penalty is that the replacement level for DH is very high, since any hitter is a potential replacement. At every other position, potential replacement is constrained by the need to field the position competently, which lowers the batting quality of the replacements and thus raises the value of the players at that position (by varying amounts depending on how difficult the position is). At DH, that doesn't matter.I think that's sort of backwards in that it presumes you're filling the now-vacated DH spot with a good hitter.
I suppose you could make the argument that a DH like Ortiz hurts a team when he keeps a superior bat out of the lineup. For example, if the team is playing a below average 1B *and* there's another better hitting player (than the below average 1B) sitting on the bench. In that case, one should move Ortiz to 1B, bench the 1B, and DH the better hitting bench player. Unless that bench player can play 1B, in which case it then does not matter who plays where, just so long as the two best bats are in the lineup.
I think DHs should be evaluated on their offensive stats alone. Penalizing them for their "lack of contribution on defense" is laughable since the rules of baseball *preclude* the DH from contributing on defense. The flip side is what, dinging a marginal HOF NL pitcher because he hurt the team with his bat? That sort of argument is never even considered.
Because then you will overrate DHs compared to 1B/LFs who were equally good offensively but had negative fielding value despite being better fielders than the DHs, who accrued no negative fielding value because they were so bad as fielders they didn't play in the field at all.Also, we're talking about HOF membership. So, why not compare a DH's offensive contributions relative to the rest of the league and relative to the other prime offensive performers in his generation of players.
Sure, it's possible. Defensive metrics have well known issues and are controversial, especially with LF defense in Fenway, and especially especially with Manny's defense (I remember reading long arguments about Manny's defense and how bad it was or wasn't here 10 years ago). But the consensus of all of the advanced defensive systems I've seen is that Manny was awful, about -20 runs/year. FWIW, he doesn't grade out any better in LA in a more conventional park (although he was older then and presumably had more physical decline).Or they didn't think Manny was as historically bad as the flawed metrics we have access to (and worse, that we had access to in 2004/5) purport.
No offense but let's tell the whole story here.
As well, you presume fully rational decision making by the team, the manager, and the players. Furthermore, your assumption is that rational decision making can only involve maximizing value per these methods.
Last, one of the big problems with replacement value as a specific concept on a team is that there are available replacement players and that the performance could have been expected, etc.
Weak infield hit. Don't think it got past the mound.*OK, so this one sucks. He only got two hits against Detroit in the ALCS. I am trying to remember the other one.
If you're that bad a fielder, getting on the field is hurting your team, so why shouldn't you be docked points for it?To speak to Min/Miller's point, there were years when Manny had a higher offensive WAR than Ortiz (per B-Ref) but a lower overall WAR. This always seemed unfair to me because Manny could at least get on the field.
First, thanks for some really well-researched and thought out replies. But you've misquoted me:On the other hand, I don't think his case is so casually dismissed that it makes the discussion and a counting of his positives as "crock full of shit."
I stand by that statement. Until you did some heavy lifting and put some effort into it. there were very few posts of substance and "chock (not "crock" - which you used, twice) full of shit" like magic numbers and voter guessing.I'm kinda bummed after reading this thread, because it's chock full of shit like "500 homers is a magic number" while ignoring the context/era in which those 500 homers were racked up.