Let's discuss Papi's HoF chances
- Thread starter MakMan44
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
Turns out that "10x to 20x weighting" for postseason production based off of impact on championship probability was quite conservative. Using the numbers from this article, I went through Ortiz's postseason game logs and weighted his performance in each playoff game by the championship leverage index of that game. The results are rather extreme: Ortiz's +3.259 postseason WPA (using b-ref this time) is roughly equivalent to +113.75 random regular season wins as far as their impact on a team's chances of winning the world series. In 2004 alone he was worth the equivalent of +48 regular season wins.
That's amazing, but it is pretty clearly an upper limit for how much we would weigh his postseason contributions. If we take those numbers at face value we should probably tell David Freese to get a head start on his induction speech, and I doubt anyone here is willing to make that argument.
That's amazing, but it is pretty clearly an upper limit for how much we would weigh his postseason contributions. If we take those numbers at face value we should probably tell David Freese to get a head start on his induction speech, and I doubt anyone here is willing to make that argument.
Of course they should and I've not once stated they shouldn't, so try not to put words in my mouth.
What I'm saying is that DH3 (you probably only know him as Plimpton) - as usual - is acting like a petulant child because someone might state opposition to his stance. And in the course of it is sounding like all those crusty old BBWAA writers that fought for Jack Morris because he was gutsy, voted in Jim Rice because he was feared, won't vote for DHs or anyone on a first ballot or steroid era players because integrity/proving a point, and refuse to look at anything other than century old counting stats and aura. And in the process is doing the exact same thing, by being stubborn and indignant.
Do you think there is not a debate to be had about his candidacy? Especially first ballot? I personally think he should be in - in part because of his postseason accomplishments - but I also think the PED guys belong in there too. And if someone tells me they don't agree with that I'm not going to pound my fist and refuse to ever speak to them again, make up words to try to weaken their argument and then tell them to get off my lawn. Because that's essentially what he's doing (and always does).
I mean, for God's sake, he's already stated that he refuses to read a word written or consider the opinion of one scribe because of his opinion about one of our prospects - that he has repeatedly admitted being wrong about - from 9 or 10 years ago; and he will blindly rage against anyone that doesn't think Papi is a first ballot lock. Does that seem like a rational position? I asked - and I would love to see answer - who he does read in that case, since pretty much every guy is wrong from time to time.
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.
Fair point. I edited the title because I agree that the discussion has clearly changed since the topic was created.
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.
Please cite where I have represented that stance. It's a lovely straw man, please make sure he stays warm as winter is coming.
I'm sorry I don't have the blind allegiance to binkies that you do and instead consider intellectual discussion of opposing views on topics rather than sticking to my guns come hell or high water, no matter how many ways I've been proven wrong. If only the Sox brass felt the same way as you, we could be blessed with Jacoby Ellsbury and his rotting corpse for five more years.
I want to address a few things now going on in this thread.
1) Maybe you guys are just having fun, but it's pretty lame to start the "I'm a better fan than you because I watch games and you watch spreadsheets" argument. The points about how context matter, etc. are fine, but let's stay away from trying to puff our chests out about how we enjoy the game.
1a) The ad hominems being thrown the other way are just as annoying.
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.
3) I asked coremiller to please stop repeating himself and now just other voices have jumped in on repeating themselves, and unlike coremiller who didn't let his frustration get the best of him, some of you guys are making this into a V&N style my perspective is more right than yours hissy fit. It may be time to consider whether the discussion is going to move anywhere and then consider whether it is worth posting any more about the same things.
1) Maybe you guys are just having fun, but it's pretty lame to start the "I'm a better fan than you because I watch games and you watch spreadsheets" argument. The points about how context matter, etc. are fine, but let's stay away from trying to puff our chests out about how we enjoy the game.
1a) The ad hominems being thrown the other way are just as annoying.
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.
3) I asked coremiller to please stop repeating himself and now just other voices have jumped in on repeating themselves, and unlike coremiller who didn't let his frustration get the best of him, some of you guys are making this into a V&N style my perspective is more right than yours hissy fit. It may be time to consider whether the discussion is going to move anywhere and then consider whether it is worth posting any more about the same things.
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.
Not you Deviz, but can a couple of other guys on this thread cut the crap? Facts and opinions, fine, but the personal attacks are tiresome.
I apologize if my post came across as a having a "better fan than you" attitude. It was basically meant as a joke. I'm pretty sure everyone in this thread watches all the games and has pretty much the same feelings about Ortiz when he's at bat in a close game.
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.
That being said, I think that there should be several paths to the HOF. One is just being an all-time great player, like, say Ken Griffey Jr. Another is being a near all-time great who had great achievements (for example contributing mightily to championship teams), and an example of that would be Kirby Puckett.
I understand those who get fairly strict about choosing the former type of player, but I don't think the HOF should really be a rank order of the 250 best players or something like that. As others have pointed out, it is the Hall of FAME. I also understand that the former point of view is getting a stronger and stronger foothold, which is why Phil Rizzuto is in the HOF but Bernie Williams didn't come close.
I think Ortiz is an example of the Kirby Puckett type of candidate, only stronger. He is also in my mind a stronger candidate than Schilling, who also falls into this category (Schilling being a near-great who had historic K/BB ratios and incredible post-season success).
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.
That being said, I think that there should be several paths to the HOF. One is just being an all-time great player, like, say Ken Griffey Jr. Another is being a near all-time great who had great achievements (for example contributing mightily to championship teams), and an example of that would be Kirby Puckett.
I understand those who get fairly strict about choosing the former type of player, but I don't think the HOF should really be a rank order of the 250 best players or something like that. As others have pointed out, it is the Hall of FAME. I also understand that the former point of view is getting a stronger and stronger foothold, which is why Phil Rizzuto is in the HOF but Bernie Williams didn't come close.
I think Ortiz is an example of the Kirby Puckett type of candidate, only stronger. He is also in my mind a stronger candidate than Schilling, who also falls into this category (Schilling being a near-great who had historic K/BB ratios and incredible post-season success).
This is the essential truth anyway, isn't it?
I also wanted to say that "the Red Sox played Manny Ramirez so clearly thought David Ortiz was a terrible first baseman" is fraught with some assumptions, as I noted earlier. For one, it's really worth noting that of the 5 years they overlapped, 4 they were managed by Tito, who, whether you consider this a plus or minus, was pretty clearly a "guys should know their role before they get to the ballpark" type. Yes, he moved Kevin Millar around a bit in 2004 but that was largely because Trot Nixon only played 48 games and Kapler wasn't good enough to be a full-time player.
Once Ortiz stopped playing 1B for even a year I think it made it easier to just let him be the full time DH and not mess with success. Remember the 2005 team was largely afloat because of Ortiz and Ramirez's smoking hot bats. Go through the August/September gamelogs. I can easily see a "this is working for us let's just keep rolling with it" mentality from Tito, and you know, they did win another World Series with this configuration in 2007.
It is also worth noting that Kevin Youkilis took over 1B in 2006 after the Beckett/Lowell trade. And Youk, love him or hate him, was generally a plus fielder at 1B and he was the third best hitter on the team (behind Manny and Ortiz) so you also don't want to displace him from the lineup either. And of course they tried the Youk to LF experiment that year when Manny got injured and it was a big failure.
Last edited:
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.
I presented Ortiz's postseason production weighted by how much impact he had on his team's odds of winning the world series. Postseason games absolutely dwarf regular season games in terms of importance, to the degree that if we use championship probability to weigh all of a player's contributions, David Ortiz looks like a more deserving Hall of Famer than Ted Williams and mediocre players with some great postseason moments (like David Freese) look like they belong in the hall. This is not to present Ortiz's postseason resume or Hall of Fame candidacy as equivalent to Freese's, nor is it to say that postseason performance should be ignored. Instead, my point was that weighing the relative importance of postseason and regular season games based off of their impact on winning championships (which I brought up more or less unprompted in the same post) is probably too aggressive. For Ortiz, +3 wins of postseason value is your floor, +114 is your ceiling, and the "right" value as far as determining Hall of Fame worthiness is going to be somewhere in the middle.
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 agree with your stance on the Hall and have never once represented that it should be a list of the highest WAR players. It should be to tell the story of the game (which is why I think the PED guys should be in, as should Rose and Jackson) and Papi has certainly made his dent there. His post season history certainly should add to his case. And I agree he should be a lock (though if anyone thinks he's getting in first ballot, or should, I think you're in for a disappointment). But I'm willing to admit some bias because he's on my favorite team, I'm far more inclined to view those moments as more important than the fan of another team might and I'm exposed much more to the "ambassador of the game" aspect than someone in a different market would be. So I'm not going to pretend that anyone that disagrees with my stance is some kind of idiot that inherently doesn't deserve discourse or consideration because I choose to use a different set of criteria, one which has proven to be a much more accurate evaluation of contribution.
I apologize if my frustrations boiled over into personal attacks that derailed the conversation.
No, Scott Brosius was mentioned earlier as was Joe Carter, so it's not just you.
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."
Ortiz has a en excellent chance:
1. The old guard in HOF voting is dying off, enough people voting appreciate him as a great hitter
2. His off season heroics are famous.
3. Playing for the Red Sox helps. See Jim Rice and Tim Raines
4. He is liked by the media and does not tweet racist ideas or defraud taxpayers out of millions.
5. The 2004 Red Sox will be one of the most famous teams ever. Being the only player remaining of the 2013 team gives him status.
6. He is a larger than life character. There is an easy, appealing narrative to apply 04 comeback to 'This is our fucking city!'
1. The old guard in HOF voting is dying off, enough people voting appreciate him as a great hitter
2. His off season heroics are famous.
3. Playing for the Red Sox helps. See Jim Rice and Tim Raines
4. He is liked by the media and does not tweet racist ideas or defraud taxpayers out of millions.
5. The 2004 Red Sox will be one of the most famous teams ever. Being the only player remaining of the 2013 team gives him status.
6. He is a larger than life character. There is an easy, appealing narrative to apply 04 comeback to 'This is our fucking city!'
When Edgar retired, I said more or less verbatim that I thought he was an incredible talent who did not deserve to be in the HOF because he was a DH, but that I reserved the right to hypocritically change my mind the moment Papi retired. That moment is now imminent.
I think with 65-70% certainty that Papi belongs in the Hall, and that is without resorting to "well if FUCKING RIZZUTO is in..." type arguments. I think with roughly 80-85% certainty that Papi *will* get in because for all of the advances we've made, the voters are still old and (white and male and) afraid of the stats - some of which paint Papi in a marginal light given offensive production during his prime, etc - and enamored with shiny things: rings, playoff MVPs, the one-at-bat heroics of lore, etc. If the game didn't need more commentary than the numbers provide, after all, how could they justify their pay checks?
So I feel comfortable (and selfishly, happy) that Papi will go in, possibly first ballot. But that makes me reflect more on poor Edgar, who had less power than Papi but a better average, and who never enjoyed the insane rocket fuel boost of being a great hitter with high leverage at bats during the most bananas period of the most intense rivalry in baseball history.
He had to play for the Ms while they were great, mediocre, and terrible, and I bet even the biggest fans on this board can remember two of his at bats, three at most. Which is a goddamn shame because he was Ernie Lombardi with a better bat. I saw him hit wall ball singles off the Sox late in his career and he was nearly thrown out at first because his hammies were so bad. If the guy could've run as fast as Sille Skrub he'd have hit .400.
So my stance is Papi gets in, and if he does, Edgar HAS to get in.
I think with 65-70% certainty that Papi belongs in the Hall, and that is without resorting to "well if FUCKING RIZZUTO is in..." type arguments. I think with roughly 80-85% certainty that Papi *will* get in because for all of the advances we've made, the voters are still old and (white and male and) afraid of the stats - some of which paint Papi in a marginal light given offensive production during his prime, etc - and enamored with shiny things: rings, playoff MVPs, the one-at-bat heroics of lore, etc. If the game didn't need more commentary than the numbers provide, after all, how could they justify their pay checks?
So I feel comfortable (and selfishly, happy) that Papi will go in, possibly first ballot. But that makes me reflect more on poor Edgar, who had less power than Papi but a better average, and who never enjoyed the insane rocket fuel boost of being a great hitter with high leverage at bats during the most bananas period of the most intense rivalry in baseball history.
He had to play for the Ms while they were great, mediocre, and terrible, and I bet even the biggest fans on this board can remember two of his at bats, three at most. Which is a goddamn shame because he was Ernie Lombardi with a better bat. I saw him hit wall ball singles off the Sox late in his career and he was nearly thrown out at first because his hammies were so bad. If the guy could've run as fast as Sille Skrub he'd have hit .400.
So my stance is Papi gets in, and if he does, Edgar HAS to get in.
My HoF checklist:
1) Numbers good enough?
2) What's their story?
So, basically, to get considered, obviously the numbers have to be HoF worthy. Then comes the important question. The HoF is voted on by the writers because they're the ones writing the stories, right? The first criteria is binary for me. Ortiz' numbers are good enough for consideration. So, what's his story?
Now, that story can included ridiculous numbers, so someone like Barry Bonds, if you took the steroids out, wouldn't be removed just because he's a dick. His story is, basically, ridiculous numbers, and that overshadows the rest (not counting the steroids, which, perhaps to some, overshadow or nullify the numbers). You get the idea, I hope. Same with a random borderline candidate of choice. They have the numbers. What's their story? Get those numbers quietly, maybe you don't have a story, so you don't get in.
My point here is basically that this isn't a statistical problem anymore. David Ortiz's HoF chances are almost entirely in the subjective range at this point. You don't need to prove anything with numbers anymore. You don't need to say that xx has a higher SLG in whatever situations, it doesn't matter anymore. No on cares if Ted Williams is ACTUALLY the greatest hitter who ever lived. His story is titled "The Greatest Hitter Who Ever Lived".
Ortiz's story, to me, is about the clutch hits, postseason heroics, being a baseball abassador, and his fucking city. He's a Hall of Famer, and no one else on the planet needs to get in before he gets in. He should be in. Any other candidate that you all feel should also be in (Edgar Martinez) should probably also be in, but they shouldn't have anything to do with anyone else.
And Frankly, I don't need a bunch of stuck up writers to tell me if he's worthy. He's in my Hall of Fame already.
1) Numbers good enough?
2) What's their story?
So, basically, to get considered, obviously the numbers have to be HoF worthy. Then comes the important question. The HoF is voted on by the writers because they're the ones writing the stories, right? The first criteria is binary for me. Ortiz' numbers are good enough for consideration. So, what's his story?
Now, that story can included ridiculous numbers, so someone like Barry Bonds, if you took the steroids out, wouldn't be removed just because he's a dick. His story is, basically, ridiculous numbers, and that overshadows the rest (not counting the steroids, which, perhaps to some, overshadow or nullify the numbers). You get the idea, I hope. Same with a random borderline candidate of choice. They have the numbers. What's their story? Get those numbers quietly, maybe you don't have a story, so you don't get in.
My point here is basically that this isn't a statistical problem anymore. David Ortiz's HoF chances are almost entirely in the subjective range at this point. You don't need to prove anything with numbers anymore. You don't need to say that xx has a higher SLG in whatever situations, it doesn't matter anymore. No on cares if Ted Williams is ACTUALLY the greatest hitter who ever lived. His story is titled "The Greatest Hitter Who Ever Lived".
Ortiz's story, to me, is about the clutch hits, postseason heroics, being a baseball abassador, and his fucking city. He's a Hall of Famer, and no one else on the planet needs to get in before he gets in. He should be in. Any other candidate that you all feel should also be in (Edgar Martinez) should probably also be in, but they shouldn't have anything to do with anyone else.
And Frankly, I don't need a bunch of stuck up writers to tell me if he's worthy. He's in my Hall of Fame already.
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).
I also agree with Sumner's point upthread. Might just be luck, or a combination of skill and luck, but doing great things repeatedly when it matters most is part of what makes you famous enough to be in the Hall of Fame. Not itself enough if you have an otherwise mediocre career, but certainly a valid factor.