Let's discuss Papi's HoF chances
- Thread starter MakMan44
- Start date
smastroyin said:
I was thinking a little more broadly than baseball.
Also, wiki has a much longer list of suspended players. I don't know how accurate it is, but there are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_suspended_for_performance-enhancing_drugs
Two quick points:
1) Sustained play after more stringent testing for PEDs is not in itself an argument that PEDs weren't used by any given player at any given time. You're taking something thats neutral and saying that because it can't prove A, B must therefore be true. There's at least one study I read that suggested certain kinds of PEDs resulted in long term "gains."
2) The have no one to blame but themselves argument applies to public perception. If the players didn't want to be suspected of PED use, they could have taken steps. They didn't. So we have a high offense era where a lot of the major stars flat out admitted or are strongly implicated in PED use. (McGuire, Sosa, Bonds, Clemens, A-Rod, Canseco, Palmiero). There's no way to go back and retroactively test because Baseball (collectively) didn't want it to happen. So it is what it is. We have to do the best we can on a case by case basis.
I don't see the case for Ortiz being a PED user. I think Bonds/Clemens were. Canseco, McGuire, A-Rod, and Caminitti completely admitted it.
soxhop411 said:
Was literally just coming here to post the same observation.
I have a pretty infographic, though...
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?
Fenway has also played really well this year. One year PF of 109 raising the three year PF to 106.
Well, now that we know 2016 is going to be Big Papi's last year, and we're in a heightened emotional state as a result, so since the HOF talk is already being reinvigorated, I'll add some thoughts here.
How HOF voters view candidates is varied, of course, but it's safe to say that there are statistical criteria, awards, and emotional stuff (e.g. postseason heroics, franchise icon, etc.). And comps come into play, because HOF voters like to pretend they are being consistent. Am I missing other factors? These seem to be the ones I can recall hearing about a lot.
The statistical case has been debated up-thread. Basically, Ortiz is sitting on a career bWAR of 50.4, and is almost certain to finish under 55 wins. His career OPS+ is 139. Recent inductees include Biggio (65, 112), Frank Thomas (73.7, 156), Barry Larkin (70.2, 116), Robbie Alomar (66.8, 116), Andre Dawson (64.5, 119), Rickey Henderson (110.8!, 127), and Jim Rice (47.4, 128). He had one season of leading the league in HRs and two in RBIs. He won the Edgar Martinez Award (ahem!) 7 times so far. Won three rings, one WS MVP, one ALCS MVP. No regular season MVPs, though he's been second, third, fourth (twice) and fifth, and probably got robbed in 2006.
Ortiz' statistical case hinges on 500+ homers -- he's likely to pass Thomas (521), along with Ted Williams and Willie McCovey (both also 521), Mel Ott, Eddie Murray, Ernie Banks and a few others. He could maybe catch Jimmie Foxx (534), Mickey Mantle (536) and maybe #16 all time Mike Schmidt (548). There are other stats that make Papi look good, but too many others that don't. Still, if you had to cherry pick a single stat to build a case around...
The emotional case is based, for now, on the obvious postseason heroics, but as Ortiz embarks on a last lap, it's possible this dynamic will change. If he is honored around the game, and I think his standing in the Latin community may be an underestimated factor in how he's treated in his last season, then HOF voters could be moved more into his column. We shall see. [And yes, I realize how ridiculous it is that a farewell tour could influence the HOF voting, but I don't have a very high opinion of some HOF voters.]
The counter-case is the PED thing. Papi did a nice job of really slamming this in his Players' Tribune piece, but if McAdam is out there lumping Ortiz in with known cheaters, then anything is possible. Again, we mostly won't know for five years how this breaks, but clearly he needs to not be lumped in with the PEDs guys, since most of them are being ignored for now.
IMHO the Edgar Martinez comp and the perceived "no DHs" approach is by far the biggest obstacle. Martinez' stats are roughly on par with all the non-Rickey inductees listed above, unlike Ortiz, with one exception -- home runs, of which Martinez had 302. If that’s what is holding Edgar back, then it doesn’t apply to Ortiz. Also if the lack of postseason heroics is holding Edgar back (a tad unfair, and he owns the single most iconic hit in Mariner history, the double (of course) to beat the Yankees in 1995), then that too does not apply to Ortiz. Also, there’s some media bias working against Martinez, which really really does not apply to Ortiz. 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.
Just a hunch but I think the DH thing is what will generate the most debate, and will tie Ortiz to Edgar. The optimist in me would like to think that it could work in the other direction – lifting Edgar’s case, rather than Edgar dragging down Papi's. Martinez was at 27% in 2015. Papi won't be eligible til 2021. By then Martinez may have fallen off.
Bottom line, this should be a very entertaining debate.
How HOF voters view candidates is varied, of course, but it's safe to say that there are statistical criteria, awards, and emotional stuff (e.g. postseason heroics, franchise icon, etc.). And comps come into play, because HOF voters like to pretend they are being consistent. Am I missing other factors? These seem to be the ones I can recall hearing about a lot.
The statistical case has been debated up-thread. Basically, Ortiz is sitting on a career bWAR of 50.4, and is almost certain to finish under 55 wins. His career OPS+ is 139. Recent inductees include Biggio (65, 112), Frank Thomas (73.7, 156), Barry Larkin (70.2, 116), Robbie Alomar (66.8, 116), Andre Dawson (64.5, 119), Rickey Henderson (110.8!, 127), and Jim Rice (47.4, 128). He had one season of leading the league in HRs and two in RBIs. He won the Edgar Martinez Award (ahem!) 7 times so far. Won three rings, one WS MVP, one ALCS MVP. No regular season MVPs, though he's been second, third, fourth (twice) and fifth, and probably got robbed in 2006.
Ortiz' statistical case hinges on 500+ homers -- he's likely to pass Thomas (521), along with Ted Williams and Willie McCovey (both also 521), Mel Ott, Eddie Murray, Ernie Banks and a few others. He could maybe catch Jimmie Foxx (534), Mickey Mantle (536) and maybe #16 all time Mike Schmidt (548). There are other stats that make Papi look good, but too many others that don't. Still, if you had to cherry pick a single stat to build a case around...
The emotional case is based, for now, on the obvious postseason heroics, but as Ortiz embarks on a last lap, it's possible this dynamic will change. If he is honored around the game, and I think his standing in the Latin community may be an underestimated factor in how he's treated in his last season, then HOF voters could be moved more into his column. We shall see. [And yes, I realize how ridiculous it is that a farewell tour could influence the HOF voting, but I don't have a very high opinion of some HOF voters.]
The counter-case is the PED thing. Papi did a nice job of really slamming this in his Players' Tribune piece, but if McAdam is out there lumping Ortiz in with known cheaters, then anything is possible. Again, we mostly won't know for five years how this breaks, but clearly he needs to not be lumped in with the PEDs guys, since most of them are being ignored for now.
IMHO the Edgar Martinez comp and the perceived "no DHs" approach is by far the biggest obstacle. Martinez' stats are roughly on par with all the non-Rickey inductees listed above, unlike Ortiz, with one exception -- home runs, of which Martinez had 302. If that’s what is holding Edgar back, then it doesn’t apply to Ortiz. Also if the lack of postseason heroics is holding Edgar back (a tad unfair, and he owns the single most iconic hit in Mariner history, the double (of course) to beat the Yankees in 1995), then that too does not apply to Ortiz. Also, there’s some media bias working against Martinez, which really really does not apply to Ortiz. 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.
Just a hunch but I think the DH thing is what will generate the most debate, and will tie Ortiz to Edgar. The optimist in me would like to think that it could work in the other direction – lifting Edgar’s case, rather than Edgar dragging down Papi's. Martinez was at 27% in 2015. Papi won't be eligible til 2021. By then Martinez may have fallen off.
Bottom line, this should be a very entertaining debate.
I`m not going to reread the thread but it may have been debated. Will the new voting rules (lack of old timers voting) help or hurt Papi? Personally I think it will help PED guys, which could get Papi a higher % just because he won`t be left off a few ballots. I don`t think Papi did PEDs but some older voters may.
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.
Look, I love David Ortiz. He is a Red Sox legend. He is not a Hall of Famer.
Further, HOF voters aren't consistent, do play favorites, and carry agendas. Ortiz is not going to play long enough for most of the current voters to die/retire - and that's a huge problem. Perhaps 40-50 years from now, when the PED Era can be looked at with some perspective by a generation removed from it, there's a chance Ortiz gets a fair hearing. But it ain't happening in the next 20 and anyone who thinks it will is delusional. Grudges from this era will be carried, and Ortiz will get caught up in the wash of sportswriters-with-an-agenda.
The bottom line here is that the only Hall of Fame David Ortiz is going into is the Red Sox Hall of Fame. He's one of the most important players in franchise history and the fans better give him a hero's send-off this season as he takes a victory lap. Because there will be no day in Cooperstown, or chance to do it later. He'll be long dead before he gets a fair hearing at the Hall - and even then, he's going to come up short, lumped in with Fred McGriff and Joe Carter and a bunch of other Hall of Very Good players.
Look, I love David Ortiz. He is a Red Sox legend. He is not a Hall of Famer.
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.
Further, HOF voters aren't consistent, do play favorites, and carry agendas. Ortiz is not going to play long enough for most of the current voters to die/retire - and that's a huge problem. Perhaps 40-50 years from now, when the PED Era can be looked at with some perspective by a generation removed from it, there's a chance Ortiz gets a fair hearing. But it ain't happening in the next 20 and anyone who thinks it will is delusional. Grudges from this era will be carried, and Ortiz will get caught up in the wash of sportswriters-with-an-agenda.
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.
The bottom line here is that the only Hall of Fame David Ortiz is going into is the Red Sox Hall of Fame. He's one of the most important players in franchise history and the fans better give him a hero's send-off this season as he takes a victory lap. Because there will be no day in Cooperstown, or chance to do it later. He'll be long dead before he gets a fair hearing at the Hall - and even then, he's going to come up short, lumped in with Fred McGriff and Joe Carter and a bunch of other Hall of Very Good players.
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.
Last edited:
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.
First, let's talk about park adjustments. Here's a simple question.
Player A hits 50 HR playing half of his games in a park with a Offensive PF of 95. How many home runs would player A hit in a park with Offensive PF of 105?
Answer behind spoiler:
WE DON'T HAVE A FUCKING CLUE, THAT IS NOT HOW PARK FACTORS WORK
OK sure, but just for the sake of argument, couldn't I back out a number from the algebra?
NO, EVEN IF WE WANTED TO AND IT WAS VALID WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION IN A SINGLE PARK FACTOR TO BACK OUT A SINGLE STAT
Let's just take a look at Fenway Park, which is pretty relevant for this discussion I think. Using a single season also should not be done regularly, but it is easier to find single season splits, and FG uses a 5 year regressed model for each year (you can dig into their methods, I'm not endorsing them, they just actually publish this data in an easy to link to page). Let's take a look at that Red Sox line and move all the way across to the "HR as L" category, and we'll see that despite the fact that Fenway typically plays as a "hitters park", when talking about LHH HR, it is one of the worst in the league as Red Sox LHH would get a PF of 90 applied to HR. You can use that link to check other years that FG has data. It is fairly consistent.
Even here, we can't be really too confident, because of course specific players have strengths and weaknesses that affect how they actually would translate.
The point is to say, even guys who are really really good at dissecting Park Factors are pretty adamant that you can't really project players from place to place. But, you need to refine the data to even have a shot.
Regardless, if we are talking in generalities, it is false to say that David Ortiz should have his HR totals discounted because of Fenway. And, his actual numbers bear this out.
Ortiz has hit 503 HR in 9465 PA. That's 18.82 PA/HR.
In Fenway, he has hit 202 HR in 4009 PA. That's 19.84 PA/HR, or 50 HR/1000 PA
That leaves 301 HR in 5456 PA outside of Fenway. That's 18.12 PA/HR. or 55 HR/1000 PA.
So he hits HR at about a 10% lower rate in Fenway.
Last edited:
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.
Second, looking at the era adjustment.
sf121 like others (maybe the "like others" lumps him in with HoF voters of course) seems to put Ortiz in the "steroid era" group when discounting his counting stats. Mostly sf121 reminded us that we are full of shit to talk about 500 HR given context of era. I guess that's fine, but if we look at the relevant years of his career (2003-2015), this is what the ranking looks like:
Pujols: 489
Ortiz: 445
Cabrera: 408
ARod: 389
Beltre: 337
Thome: 278
Manny: 245
Of this group, I think Ortiz is clearly a worse HoFer than Pujols, Cabrera (presuming his continued excellence), and Thome. Personally I would put ARod and Manny as well, but if we are talking about steroid taint on the HoF they are much more tainted than the rest of this group, fair or not. I also think Beltre is on his way, but that presumes his year this year was a blip not the first year of steep decline and presumes some value to voters of his defense.
As for the comparison to Clark. First, Clark was a great great player who had a bunch of minor injuries and maladies derail his greatness. He only played 150 games three times in his career, while having 4 seasons with less than 100 (discounting his first two years where he was back and forth to the minors). Comparing to Clark on rate stats and peak value is a compliment to Ortiz and most players. Red Sox fans tend to encapsulate the career of Jack Clark as the broken down end of career guy we saw in 1992 and that's not really fair.
It is also worth noting that you took the time to highlight McGriff (a comparable career to Ortiz without the memorable post-season moments to go with it even though he was very good in the post-season) and Carter (a mostly good not great player whose value was almost all tied to his HR totals but with some post-season heroics boosting people's image of him) without realizing that Ortiz is a combination of the best of these two guys. Also, I honestly think McGriff got fucked over by his trade to SD (thereby making him not a part of the Blue Jays WS runs and possibly deflating his counting stats during his peak years) and the strike (prematurely ending what may have been his peak season and making his decline years put in the middle of the "steroid era"). So I'm not sure he is Hall of Very Good so much as Hall of Probably Would Be In if just one more thing broke his way. Ortiz on the other hand has had good luck. But luck is part of the draw and the Hall is largely based on what actually happened, not presumptions of what might have happened.
At the end of the day, I'm not saying Ortiz is a lock or even a "should be." I was leaning toward if he played well 2-3 more seasons and especially another deep playoff run then he would move to lock status. Retiring in 2016 I think it is quite a bit more up in the air, but let's hope for the deep playoff run. 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."
sf121 like others (maybe the "like others" lumps him in with HoF voters of course) seems to put Ortiz in the "steroid era" group when discounting his counting stats. Mostly sf121 reminded us that we are full of shit to talk about 500 HR given context of era. I guess that's fine, but if we look at the relevant years of his career (2003-2015), this is what the ranking looks like:
Pujols: 489
Ortiz: 445
Cabrera: 408
ARod: 389
Beltre: 337
Thome: 278
Manny: 245
Of this group, I think Ortiz is clearly a worse HoFer than Pujols, Cabrera (presuming his continued excellence), and Thome. Personally I would put ARod and Manny as well, but if we are talking about steroid taint on the HoF they are much more tainted than the rest of this group, fair or not. I also think Beltre is on his way, but that presumes his year this year was a blip not the first year of steep decline and presumes some value to voters of his defense.
As for the comparison to Clark. First, Clark was a great great player who had a bunch of minor injuries and maladies derail his greatness. He only played 150 games three times in his career, while having 4 seasons with less than 100 (discounting his first two years where he was back and forth to the minors). Comparing to Clark on rate stats and peak value is a compliment to Ortiz and most players. Red Sox fans tend to encapsulate the career of Jack Clark as the broken down end of career guy we saw in 1992 and that's not really fair.
It is also worth noting that you took the time to highlight McGriff (a comparable career to Ortiz without the memorable post-season moments to go with it even though he was very good in the post-season) and Carter (a mostly good not great player whose value was almost all tied to his HR totals but with some post-season heroics boosting people's image of him) without realizing that Ortiz is a combination of the best of these two guys. Also, I honestly think McGriff got fucked over by his trade to SD (thereby making him not a part of the Blue Jays WS runs and possibly deflating his counting stats during his peak years) and the strike (prematurely ending what may have been his peak season and making his decline years put in the middle of the "steroid era"). So I'm not sure he is Hall of Very Good so much as Hall of Probably Would Be In if just one more thing broke his way. Ortiz on the other hand has had good luck. But luck is part of the draw and the Hall is largely based on what actually happened, not presumptions of what might have happened.
At the end of the day, I'm not saying Ortiz is a lock or even a "should be." I was leaning toward if he played well 2-3 more seasons and especially another deep playoff run then he would move to lock status. Retiring in 2016 I think it is quite a bit more up in the air, but let's hope for the deep playoff run. 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."
Last edited:
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.
Removing 20% of the older voters could very well be the drastic change needed to get these two in.
There was also a huge backlog of viable candidates. Pushing some of those through over the next 6 years could lead to a less competitive ballot.
I think that if any one of the steroid users get in over the next 6 years, that may open some floodgates which could prove beneficial for Papi (turning people who might have voted no over some suspicion directed his way) but it might also hurt as it might add to the number of competitors (Palmeiro, McGwire, etc) in the ranks of the borderline folks.
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.
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.
People who think that David Ortiz is a borderline Hall of FAME player, or think he doesn't belong in the Hall of FAME, have a much different interpretation of what that institution should be than I do.
Ortiz's numbers stack up well inside the current lower limit. The historical significance of his accomplishments in the game is I would pull out my ass and say, somewhere in the top third. If David Ortiz isn't in the Hall of FAME, then at least change its name but for me you might as well close it down.
Ortiz's numbers stack up well inside the current lower limit. The historical significance of his accomplishments in the game is I would pull out my ass and say, somewhere in the top third. If David Ortiz isn't in the Hall of FAME, then at least change its name but for me you might as well close it down.
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.
To amplify P91's point, it's fascinating how important post-season performance is to HOF chances in football and basketball while in baseball post-season accomplishments are sometimes just left out of the discussion. There's a reasonable argument he was the best player on the team, and at worst he was very very close to the being the best player on the team, for three separate championship-winning post-seasons. How much is that worth on top of his already being a great regular season player?
I am not a student of HOF eligibility. I am not clear on how Papi's numbers and more advanced stats stack up against others. I take the Edgar Martinez points. So if you choose to read on, please know that I admit to discussing this without that knowledge and discount my views accordingly.
That intro having been made, if you step back and look at Ortiz's accomplishments over the era in which he played, and how instrumental he was in all three Red Sox titles, including the first one in 86 years, I think it's hard to imagine him not being in the HOF. How many players in the game during the years in which he played stood out more? I also think the sheer amount of clutch, game winning hits and homers he had cannot be ignored. The man is iconic and the HOF should have each generation's iconic players (provided they have minimum HOF numbers, which it seems to me that he has with his 500 plus homers and his year-by-year stats).
My take is that the main objection to him is not his DH status or how his numbers stack up. It's that he was on that 2003 list. That topic has been discussed at length and I am not doing to burden this thread with much more than the fact that it's simply not the case that Ortiz failed a drug test when the MLB had established testing procedures and an appellate process. Instead, he's on a list for who knows what, and on a list that was not supposed to be disclosed and was created only so MLB could get a sense of the magnitude of the problem.* That, to me, is a difference that matters. To me, someone being clearly caught juicing after baseball had adopted rules and procedures regarding the testing is just different than someone in the ambiguous position that David finds himself in. And that's even assuming that PEDs use by itself should be enough to keep players out, but that's a different, broader conversation.
* The CHB's column this morning glossed over this difference, predictably. But I digress.
That intro having been made, if you step back and look at Ortiz's accomplishments over the era in which he played, and how instrumental he was in all three Red Sox titles, including the first one in 86 years, I think it's hard to imagine him not being in the HOF. How many players in the game during the years in which he played stood out more? I also think the sheer amount of clutch, game winning hits and homers he had cannot be ignored. The man is iconic and the HOF should have each generation's iconic players (provided they have minimum HOF numbers, which it seems to me that he has with his 500 plus homers and his year-by-year stats).
My take is that the main objection to him is not his DH status or how his numbers stack up. It's that he was on that 2003 list. That topic has been discussed at length and I am not doing to burden this thread with much more than the fact that it's simply not the case that Ortiz failed a drug test when the MLB had established testing procedures and an appellate process. Instead, he's on a list for who knows what, and on a list that was not supposed to be disclosed and was created only so MLB could get a sense of the magnitude of the problem.* That, to me, is a difference that matters. To me, someone being clearly caught juicing after baseball had adopted rules and procedures regarding the testing is just different than someone in the ambiguous position that David finds himself in. And that's even assuming that PEDs use by itself should be enough to keep players out, but that's a different, broader conversation.
* The CHB's column this morning glossed over this difference, predictably. But I digress.
Last edited:
By the time Ortiz is up for election, with the new rule, there will be more of a tilt toward votes that do understand some of the advanced statistics. How much it matters is anyone's guess, to be honest.
Yeah, ultimately I think voters have to recognize that you can't tell the story of baseball from 2000-2015 without a big plaque of Papi's smiling face. Baseball's a sport, an entertainment. His numbers are good enough-ish, but his personality has been one of the biggest. Rafael Palmeiro is a complete snooze. David Ortiz made church bells ring in the middle of night across New England. Dude is famous.
[snip -- I've read Posnanski now and he reports the PED thing fairly]?
To Saints Rest, another way this unfolds is that the resistance to dopers slowly fades, and lets in guys like Ortiz who don't really have a doping case against them, but still keeps out guys like Sosa and McGwire for their careers being maybe entirely fabricated out of PEDs.
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 Ortiz has the problem that the voters who would be most likely to be sympathetic to his case for narrative/post-season/counting stats reasons are also more likely to be the old-school voters who care about PEDs. There isn't too much of the electorate in the part of the Venn diagram that covers non-PED/non-analytics voters, certainly not enough to get to 75%.
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.
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.
For the record, Law and (and Rob Neyer) will be eligible to vote in three years. So his vote will matter.
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.
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.
Not enough emphasis has been put on Papi's ambassador role, either. He's done more for baseball that hit a few dingers. He's been one of the faces of the Sport for over a decade. That should count for something, and I mean something tangible.
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.
Except that Keith Law is on the record as saying he believes Edgar Martinez belongs in the HOF. So enjoy those two ideas together.
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.
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.
As I have said many times, the DH argument to me is fairly weak. It speaks to the way that we treasure comparative single number VALUE over all other things. It's dumb. If the game of baseball were as boring as a single number none of us would watch it.
At the end of the day, AL teams are obligated to have a DH. They can't choose to play with an 8th fielder or random guy playing behind the catcher in case of a passed ball. They have to have a guy whose only job is to hit. Now, of course the selection bias that coremiller mentions is present. But, we have pretty decent evidence that David Ortiz could play the field. The difference is that the Red Sox have chosen (quite properly) to maximize their offense because they had David Ortiz rather than try to maximize a value proposition. Of course we can argue that they may have been better off with David Ortiz at 1B while Manny Ramirez DH'd and someone competent played the field, but the Red Sox willfully chose otherwise (largely to get a good 1B bat in play). It's hard to say, without having access to their own metrics, whether this was because they believed he would be a bad 1B, whether they believed his body would not stand up to playing the field every day, etc. There is also the fact that for much of his Red Sox career, the 1B options were Kevin Youkilis, Adrian Gonzalez, and Mike Napoli, who were good to excellent fielders in their time here.
In terms of VALUE alone, this doesn't matter. He played the positions he did. In terms of HoF candidacy, I do think a little more thought needs to be involved. If David Ortiz came up in 1960 he would have safely been thrown at 1B and played there for as long as he could. What this would have meant to his career we don't know and can't say. Like Pos, I think DH's should be considered kind of in that group with 1B and maybe those hit first corner OF. That said, as a 1B his numbers alone are not exceptional.
At the end of the day, AL teams are obligated to have a DH. They can't choose to play with an 8th fielder or random guy playing behind the catcher in case of a passed ball. They have to have a guy whose only job is to hit. Now, of course the selection bias that coremiller mentions is present. But, we have pretty decent evidence that David Ortiz could play the field. The difference is that the Red Sox have chosen (quite properly) to maximize their offense because they had David Ortiz rather than try to maximize a value proposition. Of course we can argue that they may have been better off with David Ortiz at 1B while Manny Ramirez DH'd and someone competent played the field, but the Red Sox willfully chose otherwise (largely to get a good 1B bat in play). It's hard to say, without having access to their own metrics, whether this was because they believed he would be a bad 1B, whether they believed his body would not stand up to playing the field every day, etc. There is also the fact that for much of his Red Sox career, the 1B options were Kevin Youkilis, Adrian Gonzalez, and Mike Napoli, who were good to excellent fielders in their time here.
In terms of VALUE alone, this doesn't matter. He played the positions he did. In terms of HoF candidacy, I do think a little more thought needs to be involved. If David Ortiz came up in 1960 he would have safely been thrown at 1B and played there for as long as he could. What this would have meant to his career we don't know and can't say. Like Pos, I think DH's should be considered kind of in that group with 1B and maybe those hit first corner OF. That said, as a 1B his numbers alone are not exceptional.
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.
David Ortiz was never going to be a shoo-in Hall-of-Famer. Old timers who would have overvalued his home runs and RBIs discard him for being a DH, younger voters who are willing to accept a DH recognise that his batting numbers aren't enough to make him a clear standout player. Barring another 3-5 years of good production into his 40s, Ortiz's HoF case was always going to be somewhat borderline, sitting on the gap between big hall and small hall types, heavily dependent on how voters weighed his stellar postseason performances and his off-field impact as an "ambassador to the game." If a guy like Law decides he doesn't think those factors are important enough to push Ortiz onto his ballot, that's his prerogative, and if he can defend his choice he deserves to make it.
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.
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.
The argument against a DH like Ortiz isn't so much that he keeps a superior bat out of the lineup as that he forces the team to play a weaker hitter in the field or play a very weak defensive player at a different position (although I guess that's maybe a different way of stating the same point). The 04-05 Red Sox with Millar at 1B (a much weaker hitter than Ortiz, and not a good fielder either) and Ramirez in LF (a disaster of a fielder by just about any metric, although granted metrics have had issues with LF at Fenway) are a classic case -- if Ortiz was at all capable of playing 1B semi-competently (say, to even -10 runs/150 games or so, which is pretty bad for a 1B), they would have been much better off playing him there, DHing Manny, and trying to find a competent LF. That the Sox didn't do this strongly suggests they didn't think Ortiz could handle 1B, which had negative ripple effects down the lineup.
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.
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.
Last edited:
Isn't the anti-DH bias a bit more nuanced than "he didn't contribute defensively"? I think at least part of it is that playing DH allows a player to avoid the physical demands of playing the entire game. Still, baseball created the position, so it's bullshit for them to punish a guy for playing it.
I personally think Ortiz is HoF-worthy, but I can appreciate the arguments against. I don't agree that DHs should only be evaluated for their hitting. There are many ways you can contribute to your team and to baseball, and all of those factors can legitimately be considered. If you can't play defense, that's a flaw in your resume, imo. It limits how the team can use you, how it can use the DH spot, and how it can create and maintain its roster. I don't think being a DH should in any way disqualify you, either, but if Law thinks it's a minus, then, fine. I also don't think that playing bad defense, even if it allows the team to get another good bat in the lineup, is a particular plus in your HoF candidacy, but I suppose context over a particular player's career could matter in that analysis (for example, Manny played a crappy LF instead of DH'ing so that Papi could DH - that could be seen either as a plus for Manny or as reducing the minus that his bad defense would otherwise represent).
I actually like that the HoF criteria that voters can use are fuzzy and open to varied interpretation and application. It makes for fascinating debates.
I actually like that the HoF criteria that voters can use are fuzzy and open to varied interpretation and application. It makes for fascinating debates.
Perhaps we need a different model then.
And I think we're talking past each other re: the weaker hitter in the field issue. Millar, Ramirez and Ortiz were all going to be in the 04 lineup. What difference does it matter who played where? I understand your argument that the Sox could have put Ortiz at first, DH'ed Ramirez, and traded Millar for a LF who was better than Manny defensively and approached Millar offensively. But that didn't happen. They could have swapped Ortiz and Millar, and maybe Ortiz would have been "more valuable" at first and Millar would have DH'd. But that didn't happen either. Ortiz didn't decide where he was playing - his manager did.
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.
And I think we're talking past each other re: the weaker hitter in the field issue. Millar, Ramirez and Ortiz were all going to be in the 04 lineup. What difference does it matter who played where? I understand your argument that the Sox could have put Ortiz at first, DH'ed Ramirez, and traded Millar for a LF who was better than Manny defensively and approached Millar offensively. But that didn't happen. They could have swapped Ortiz and Millar, and maybe Ortiz would have been "more valuable" at first and Millar would have DH'd. But that didn't happen either. Ortiz didn't decide where he was playing - his manager did.
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.
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.
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).
It's also possible that they tried and just couldn't find a decent LF at the right price, so they stuck with the Ortiz/Ramirez/Millar combo. Or they were just irrational.
But arguing the specifics of the 04-05 is kind of besides the point, which was just to illustrate the more general concept of why DH's are less valuable than other positions -- by being at the least scarce/valuable end of the defensive spectrum, they create roster constraints that players above them on the defensive spectrum do not.
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.
That being said, here are Papi's OPS by series in the championship runs:
2004: 1.688/1.199/1.086
2007: 2.418/.966/.945
2013: 1.479/.427*/1.948
*OK, so this one sucks. He only got two hits against Detroit in the ALCS. I am trying to remember the other one.
That being said, here are Papi's OPS by series in the championship runs:
2004: 1.688/1.199/1.086
2007: 2.418/.966/.945
2013: 1.479/.427*/1.948
*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?
First, thanks for some really well-researched and thought out replies. But you've misquoted me:
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.
As for your conclusions...eh. I'll stand with Law and other voters who aren't swayed by our (read: fans) incredible fondness for one of, if not the most important player in franchise history. There simply will not be the voter attrition assumed in this thread before Ortiz's 10 years are up in 2031 (assuming he retires as stated after 2016 and has his five year waiting period). I'm pretty sure the voter pool will be filled with people still pissy about the PED era and its effect on the record book and that isn't going away, ever.
Gordon Edes has a tough job to sell a DH with a PED accusation and numbers that aren't automatically "magic" to voters who have biases against all three factors.