And all that postseason success? Well, I assume the Hall of Players with the Best Advanced Regular Season Statistically Based Production Metrics has a few postseason exhibits, honor him there."Sure Mariano was good, but he wasn't good enough to start."
Or maybe they simply came to the conclusion that 1B was an easier position to fill than LF, since Manny would have moved to DH in the hypothetical Ortiz plays 1B scenario.Of course, this only matters if you can make a convincing case that Ortiz would have been passable defensively and unaffected offensively if he had been a regular 1st baseman instead of a DH. The Red Sox front office clearly didn't think so.
Do you think the 2013 ACLS Game 2 grand slam should have any effect on his HOF chances? Do you think the three walk-off hits in the 2004 playoff run should have any effect on his HOF chances? Do you think his OPS of 1.948 in the 2013 WS should have any effect on his HOF chances?You use the word "clutch" in your daily vernacular, don't you?
Of course they should and I've not once stated they shouldn't, so try not to put words in my mouth.Do you think the 2013 ACLS Game 2 grand slam should have any effect on his HOF chances? Do you think the three walk-off hits in the 2004 playoff run should have any effect on his HOF chances? Do you think his OPS of 1.948 in the 2013 WS should have any effect on his HOF chances?
It is possible that I am disadvantaged in estimating HOF-worthiness because I watch games and am therefore swayed, to some degree, by context.
Ortiz has performed incredibly well in the clutch. Whether or not "clutch" actually exists in the sense of whether he could be expected to be just as "clutch' if we did it all over again or if we put him on a different team or at first base is to me completely immaterial to a discussion of what someone actually accomplished in the opportunities he was given and what those accomplishments actually meant to the team. In Ortiz' case he has accomplished a lot and it meant a lot.
Edit: Completely dismissing context and actual accomplishment is how people like the folks at 538 determine that Payton Manning is clearly the GOAT.
He actually wasn't an above average 1B in 2014--which is why his defensive value was higher in 2015 than 2014, despite the move to DH--but even assuming he was, the answer would be: He didn't go from an above average first baseman to a below average first baseman, but he went from a role in which being an above average first baseman could help his team win games to a role in which it couldn't. That's not his fault, but it does affect the actual value of his contribution to the team's chances of winning.Adam LaRoche went from an above average first baseman to a below average first baseman simply by signing witrh a team that already had Jose Abreau.
Fair point. I edited the title because I agree that the discussion has clearly changed since the topic was created.Can I just go ahead and say that one of the annoying things about SoSH is when we are on post #170 in a thread, and people are still arguing about the issue as if the thread title represents the entire discussion.
The question of whether he is a "lock" is boring because on top of all of the subjective opinions of Hall voters, it then becomes a question of how you define the word "lock." So I hate to have a heavy hand editing thread titles here, but maybe in this case we can just talk about the worthiness of his case and skip the idea of whether he is a "lock," the answer to which is a resounding "no" (As of November 2015) if you define "lock" as "overwhelming favorite to get in on his first ballot" and "maybe" if you define "lock" as "more likely than not to get in".
As a way of describing what has happened, all the time. As a predictive tool, not so much. I realize such fine distinctions are too much for your brain to handle, continue with your one size fits all view of baseball by spreadsheet though.You use the word "clutch" in your daily vernacular, don't you?
As a way of describing what has happened, all the time. As a predictive tool, not so much. I realize such fine distinctions are too much for your brain to handle, continue with your one size fits all view of baseball by spreadsheet though.
If it's not predictive then it wasn't part of the player's skill set and we are celebrating people who rolled the dice well.The issue with clutch performance is whether it's predictive of future clutch performance. Not a major concern for the HOF, as you might guess.
This is the essential truth anyway, isn't it?If it's not predictive then it wasn't part of the player's skill set and we are celebrating people who rolled the dice well.
I'm terribly sorry, I believe I am the only one to make a comparison like this and it seems I didn't make myself clear.2) People need to stop right now with the picking any random post-season hero and saying they are equivalent to the argument about David Ortiz. Let me make a comparison to skyscrapers. When talking about tallest buildings in the world, there is a lot of argument over how much things like antennas should count and architects do little tricks to make useless height from spires, etc. count just to get in the record books. So let's say the postseason is all of those kind of subjective "do they really count as height" things. So the point on Ortiz is that he already pretty tall, but it's under some debate how much that extra height should count. Saying we then have to consider David Freese is like putting a 300' spire on a three decker in Chelsea and saying we now need to consider whether that building is the tallest in the world.
My comment was to highlight the antiquated viewpoints that completely dismiss modern statistical analysis to hold up the beliefs of the old men who can't change their way of viewing the game and have kept out players I think belong, like Tim Raines or Alan Trammell, or have dumped players like Lou Whitaker off the ballot far too quickly and denied them of even having the conversation they probably deserved. All the while players like Jim Rice or Bruce Sutter get in and Jack Morris gets a 15 year review mostly because he was gutsy and people liked his mustache.I also apologize for putting words in PPs mouth. I reacted to what I saw as a disparagement to the notion of "clutch" as it pertains to Papi, but it clearly was more of a response to a different poster.
No, Scott Brosius was mentioned earlier as was Joe Carter, so it's not just you.I'm terribly sorry, I believe I am the only one to make a comparison like this and it seems I didn't make myself clear.
Yes, exactly. That's a lot of what fame is. Dimaggio's hitting streak is largely a lucky roll of the dice. A lot of the fun of sports is seeing top competitors measure their skills against each other, but a lot of it is seeing weird or timely flukes happen--hitting that bomb at the right time in extras to start a 4-game comeback when you're down 3-0 in the ALCS, a Hail Mary falling in for Flutie, a player happening to land in the bullpen with his legs spread the same way the cop's arms are lifted, a ball bouncing off of Canseco's head, or a David Tyree or Kirk Gibson or Rulon Gardner.If it's not predictive then it wasn't part of the player's skill set and we are celebrating people who rolled the dice well.
Yeah, so I wrote a post, but that's about it.Yes, exactly. That's a lot of what fame is. Dimaggio's hitting streak is largely a lucky roll of the dice. A lot of the fun of sports is seeing top competitors measure their skills against each other, but a lot of it is seeing weird or timely flukes happen--hitting that bomb at the right time in extras to start a 4-game comeback when you're down 3-0 in the ALCS, a Hail Mary falling in for Flutie, a player happening to land in the bullpen with his legs spread the same way the cop's arms are lifted, a ball bouncing off of Canseco's head, or a David Tyree or Kirk Gibson or Rulon Gardner.
What's predictive is great for putting together a team for next season or arguing about who was better, but the results are what measure what happened and a huge driver of fame.
It's like Christopher Walken said in Poolhall Junkies after making a nearly impossible shot. His opponent said "You couldn't make that shot again in a million years," to which he responded "I don't have to make it again. I just made it."
I agree with this. But I also lived in Chelsea and think this is a fine idea in its own right. Let's get it done (with a 1000' spire)....Saying we then have to consider David Freese is like putting a 300' spire on a three decker in Chelsea and saying we now need to consider whether that building is the tallest in the world.