Let's discuss Papi's HoF chances

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,104
We should probably just admit to ourselves that we're not capable of objectively and rationally discussing this.  To me & probably every Sox fan he is a HOFer lock.  To most of the rest of the country he's probably the definition of a borderline candidate.  Probably needs to finish the career strong to swing it in his favor.
 

HangingW/ScottCooper

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
2,493
Scituate, MA
There are about 20 guys who's career started in the mid-late 80s or later that should be in the Hall of Fame that aren't. The logjam caused by the 10 player cap is hurting them all. When a significant number of voters have full ballots (I thought I saw the number was 50% but I may be mistaken. It's at least 25%) that's a problem.
 
The knocks against Ortiz are steroid suspensions (it's a semantics argument, but you can say suspensions or positive test for unknown substance) and that he's a DH. Carlos Delgado dropped off the ballot after a year and had similar non-Postseason numbers. Obviously Ortiz has better name recognition, but if any of the voters don't know who Carlos Delgado is they shouldn't have a vote.
 
I think the voting needs to change for David Ortiz to get in on the writers vote.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
I was looking at a previous thread, and I had posted this.  I updated ranks in bold.  I know for a month last year and a couple this it seemed like the end, but he has really accumulated well in the past 11 playing months, while not really dropping too much in rates.
 
 

smastroyin said:
I was going to mention in the Helton thread that putting Helton in does open the door a bit for a guy like Ortiz.
 
That said, his career started a little too late.  If he does manage to play three more years at a level close to this, that gives him 12 really good years and that might be enough, just phased about 4 years later than most HoF types.  The reason I think he needs the three years is to get those counting stats up.  Right now, here are some of his ranks and my comments:
 
AVG:  .287 (452) .283 (524) This is going to hurt him.  We all know that AVG isn't the be-all, end-all, but as a DH only the fact that he's not above the magic .300 line will count against him even though more and more the BBWAA understand the fallacy of AVG.
OBP:  .381 (162) .378/ (183) Much better rank that the AVG but not elite given his era (as opposed to if he played in the 60's and 70's)
SLG:  .549 (26)  .545 (29) Here he is elite but will be hurt again by era (for instance he is 6th among active players and 12th among contemporaries, and if he drops even to .540 that puts him below another half dozen)
OPS:  .930 (238) .923 (44)  If we consider this the new AVG then he looks pretty good here.  Again, though, a lot of SLG driven contemporaries right around this number.
Hits:  2001 (275)  2277 (159) There are plenty of guys ahead of him and not very many behind him among HoF.  I would call this a minimum requirement in this era.  
2B:  512 (50)  574 (22) Again, hardly surprising that he ranks this high on a power stat.  But, there are a bunch of guys with 500 2B that aren't in, and probably shouldnt be (e.g. Luis Gonzalez, Bobby Abreu)
HR:  427 (46)  495 (27) Ditto above, if you think this is high enough to get him in almost on its own, then you think that about  Konerko, Canseco, Giambi, Dunn etc.
 
However, if he can play a few more years ratcheting up his accumulative stats (getting to 500 HR would be key, getting to 2500 H and 550 2B would help) without dropping significantly in rate states, he has a pretty good chance.

 
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,423
Not here
I don't remember if it's been mentioned in this thread before, but the BBWAA has changed the voting rules so oldsters who haven't covered the game in ten years don't get votes. That's probably going to have a significant impact on who gets in.

Anyone want to go through and see if the oldsters are the PED absolutists?
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,600
02130
HangingW/ScottCooper said:
 
 
The knocks against Ortiz are steroid suspensions (it's a semantics argument, but you can say suspensions or positive test for unknown substance) and that he's a DH. 
This isn't semantics. He was never suspended for steroids. He may have tested positive for something, but the results of the test were 1. supposed to be kept confidential and 2. were simply to determine the extent of PEDs in the game. He wasn't even told what he may have tested positive for and MLB even said that some players on the list may not have tested positive. Look this stuff up.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ortiz#Alleged_positive_performance-enhancing-drug_test_in_2003
 
Here's the statement from MLB at the time:
 
"It should be pointed out that the names on the list, which was prepared by the federal government and not by anyone associated with our Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program, are subject to uncertainties with regard to the test results. There are more names on the government list (104) than the maximum number of positives that were recorded under the 2003 program (96). And, as the Mitchell Report made clear, some of the 96 positives were contested by the union.
"Given the uncertainties inherent in the list, we urge the press and the public to use caution in reaching conclusions based on leaks of names, particularly from sources whose identities are not revealed."
 
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/print.jsp?ymd=20090808&content_id=6316054
 

threecy

Cosbologist
SoSH Member
Sep 1, 2006
1,587
Tamworth, NH
Toe Nash said:
This isn't semantics. He was never suspended for steroids. 
At this juncture, that doesn't matter; being rumored or connected has been enough to keep folks out of the Hall.  McGwire, Bagwell, Bonds, etc. were never suspended for steroids.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
ALiveH said:
We should probably just admit to ourselves that we're not capable of objectively and rationally discussing this.  To me & probably every Sox fan he is a HOFer lock.  To most of the rest of the country he's probably the definition of a borderline candidate.  Probably needs to finish the career strong to swing it in his favor.
 
He's a borderline candidate, fan or not. Reaching 500 gives him a nice round number to latch on to, but he's still a step behind Edgar Martinez for regular season career stats (and a couple of steps behind Frank Thomas). The post season heroics give him a great emotional boost and I think that in the end, he'll get in, but the suspicion of PED use, justified or not, will counteract some of that playoff momentum. He's a great player and is one of the greatest hitters the Red Sox have ever had. He's a legend in Boston for a number of reasons, but in the end, his career stats are borderline and I think the stuff that surrounds that (playoff performance, PED suspicions, no defensive contribution over his career) will balance out leaving those career numbers to determine whether he gets in or not.
 
I get the argument that DH is a position and shouldn't disqualify you. I agree with it. But fact is, Papi hasn't played defense for the vast majority of his career and that value (or lack of it) counts when considering his candidacy.I hope he gets enshrined. I really do. But if he doesn't, it's not going to be a travesty or anything. That said, if Jim Rice is the bar he has to clear, he should get enough votes. I'm just not sure Rice should be considered the threshold as I don't think he deserved enshrinement.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,900
Alexandria, VA
threecy said:
At this juncture, that doesn't matter; being rumored or connected has been enough to keep folks out of the Hall.  McGwire, Bagwell, Bonds, etc. were never suspended for steroids.
 
McGwire and Bonds were at least credibly connected to PEDs (legal or otherwise).  AFAIK there's nothing implicating Bagwell other than innuendo and speculation.
 

threecy

Cosbologist
SoSH Member
Sep 1, 2006
1,587
Tamworth, NH
SumnerH said:
 
McGwire and Bonds were at least credibly connected to PEDs (legal or otherwise).  AFAIK there's nothing implicating Bagwell other than innuendo and speculation.
With the confusion about the leaked test, I think some can put Ortiz alongside McGwire and Bonds (I'm not saying this is right; I'd go as far as to suggest steroids have been in the game a lot longer than the HOF voters have been penalizing players)
 
The Bagwell case makes him even less of a lock, since the only 'evidence' is body type/performance/breakdown.  Bagwell only made it to 449 HRs, but he was an elite hitter throughout his career (power and on base), Gold Glove defender, and had 2 30 stolen base seasons on the base paths.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
So maybe we at SoSH can be the group that at least speaks the truth about that result and stop posts saying there is only a semantic difference between Ortiz and actually getting suspended, which is nonsense I expect from a Yankees fan.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
It is sloppy and ridiculous to place Ortiz in a category with players who have actually been suspended for PEDs.  Hell, it's even a stretch to compare him with Andy Pettitte.  Ortiz was linked to an inconclusive result from a test that was a random screening (with no rigor or precision) to determine whether testing would be implemented.  The lack of precision (or any follow up) is the reason that the test results were anonymous, and Ortiz was smeared by the leaking of his result.
 
That's the truth of the situation.  Unfortunately, in the minds of most media figures I've ever heard discuss the issue, Papi is branded as a user.  And I think that will probably be enough to make the HOF a difficult proposition for him when the time comes.
 

Spacemans Bong

chapeau rose
SoSH Member
Merkle's Boner said:
The thing that frustrates me about the DH thing is, when looking at those guys GREELEY compares Papi to, does anyone believe that any of them (maybe Bagwell) added any value defensively. Guys like Giambi and Delgado and McGriff were hitting machines, pure and simple. I would argue the same thing about Piazza, to include a guy who most likely will get in. Papi was used correctly for almost his entire career. That shouldn't be held against him.
 
Just taking a glove out there has some value, it's easier to rotate guys in and out of DH (or sign an old guy) than get a cromulent position player. Saying that, WAR (at least bWAR) certainly penalizes bad first basemen as much as a guy who DHes and I think that's fair. Win Shares had maybe my favourite system, because DHs got no value from defense while even bad 1Bs would scrap a tenth of a Win Share or something a year. 
 
As an aside, I do think Bagwell was a very solid defensive player and I think Piazza's detractors focused too much on his throwing arm. He could call a game, I don't recall him being a turnstile at home plate, and that makes you a decent catcher even if your arm stinks. 
 
But Papi only has 50 bWAR, so it's not like DHing is what's holding him back. His highest season in OPS+ is 171, and his career is 139. Very good, but not exceptional. He's not Edgar, who had that monster 1995, and accumulated 66 bWAR on offense alone. He can still hit so he can still compile value, but there's good logical reasons to not vote for him rather than PEDs or anti-DH bias. I don't like the DH and I would vote for Edgar, and I would probably vote for Papi if he can stick around for another 2-3 years, hit reasonably well, and add a little more value. I'm not about to turn down a guy for the Hall because he didn't pick up a glove when he's contributed to some of the most important moments in my personal baseball history and all baseball history. Iconic players like him deserve the benefit of the doubt (I feel the same way about Vlad, who is also borderline on the stats front). 
 

Spacemans Bong

chapeau rose
SoSH Member
Average Reds said:
It is sloppy and ridiculous to place Ortiz in a category with players who have actually been suspended for PEDs.  Hell, it's even a stretch to compare him with Andy Pettitte.  Ortiz was linked to an inconclusive result from a test that was a random screening (with no rigor or precision) to determine whether testing would be implemented.  The lack of precision (or any follow up) is the reason that the test results were anonymous, and Ortiz was smeared by the leaking of his result.
 
That's the truth of the situation.  Unfortunately, in the minds of most media figures I've ever heard discuss the issue, Papi is branded as a user.  And I think that will probably be enough to make the HOF a difficult proposition for him when the time comes.
 
He's also a big slugger who was pretty close to being out of baseball around the time that test occurred, and guys who are close to being out definitely look for a boost.
 
I'm not calling him a user but I'm not really keen to pick apart test results when the more honest position, both in reflecting what I believe and taking into account that it's very possible Papi did use, is that moral panicking over PEDs is dumb and we need to look fairly upon people who played in that era. Nobody seems to deny it was endemic and while Frank Thomas gets a high five for being on the right side of history, I'm not going to make him the only big fat slugger to enter the Hall of Fame for the next 20 years. 
 
It'll be interesting to see how the voting pool changes. Between the marches of time and the "no vote if you haven't covered the game for years and years" rule, I think the people voting in 2024 are going to be much more pro-PED users than the current voters. There seems to be a pretty strong correlation between having grown up watching the Bash Brothers/Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens/Papi and not giving a crap about PEDs - it's largely the guys in their mid-40s and older who seem to really take this stuff personally. 
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
Spacemans Bong said:
 
Just taking a glove out there has some value, it's easier to rotate guys in and out of DH (or sign an old guy) than get a cromulent position player. Saying that, WAR (at least bWAR) certainly penalizes bad first basemen as much as a guy who DHes and I think that's fair. Win Shares had maybe my favourite system, because DHs got no value from defense while even bad 1Bs would scrap a tenth of a Win Share or something a year. 
 
As an aside, I do think Bagwell was a very solid defensive player and I think Piazza's detractors focused too much on his throwing arm. He could call a game, I don't recall him being a turnstile at home plate, and that makes you a decent catcher even if your arm stinks. 
 
But Papi only has 50 bWAR, so it's not like DHing is what's holding him back. His highest season in OPS+ is 171, and his career is 139. Very good, but not exceptional. He's not Edgar, who had that monster 1995, and accumulated 66 bWAR on offense alone. He can still hit so he can still compile value, but there's good logical reasons to not vote for him rather than PEDs or anti-DH bias. I don't like the DH and I would vote for Edgar, and I would probably vote for Papi if he can stick around for another 2-3 years, hit reasonably well, and add a little more value. I'm not about to turn down a guy for the Hall because he didn't pick up a glove when he's contributed to some of the most important moments in my personal baseball history and all baseball history. Iconic players like him deserve the benefit of the doubt (I feel the same way about Vlad, who is also borderline on the stats front). 
This is exactly where I'm at. If I were a voter, I'm of the opinion that post season stats should count in terms of cumulative totals so there is less subjectivity about how much they actually contributed.  DH's need to have those numbers to give them a chance.
 
Though I would also add that my issue isn't that DH's shouldn't be in the HoF -  it's that DH's should be the very best hitters in history, and not just the best among DH's.
 

Fireball Fred

New Member
Jul 29, 2005
172
NoCa Mass.
I agree with a lot here (on both sides) but I think the entire future of the Hall is so problematic we can't tell anyway. Put simply: if we expect the HoF to go on without Bonds, Clemens, and ARod, we're expecting it to be irrelevant to telling the story of baseball in our time. And if that's the case, nobody will care anyway. Maybe in five-ten years things will be clearer.

P.S. - Since Morris's HoF claim is based on his being the best AL pitcher of the '80s, well, no, that was Clemens.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Fireball Fred said:
P.S. - Since Morris's HoF claim is based on his being the best AL pitcher of the '80s, well, no, that was Clemens.
 
Morris isn't even in the top 10 in either ERA- (13) or FIP- (17) among 47 pitchers with at least 1500 IP in the 80s. Think about that. That was his prime decade, he pitched in every year of it at ages 25 through 34, and he wasn't even in the top quartile of pitchers who averaged 150 innings a year through the decade. 
 

AbbyNoho

broke her neck in costa rica
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2006
12,177
Northampton, Massachusetts
Spacemans Bong said:
 
He's also a big slugger who was pretty close to being out of baseball around the time that test occurred, and guys who are close to being out definitely look for a boost.
 
Uh, what? He was coming off a season where he hit .272/.339/.500 with 20 homers and an OPS+ of 120. The Twins stupidly decided he was expendable, but that does not mean he was close to out of baseball. If the Red Sox hadn't grabbed him another team would have. 
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
500 is still one of those magic numbers that usually guarantees entry, about the only guys on that list that haven't reached yet are the confirmed juicers, and I think even those guys will eventually get in once the grumpy old writers fade from the voting lists. Ortiz probably has a better shot than many of them as his eligibility won't be starting for another 7-8 years (which is that many more purists weaned from the rolls), he'll be closer to Manny Ramirez on the home run list, and he'll have turned in some all star seasons after the new testing regimen. Not a first ballot, certainly, but he's getting in.
 

threecy

Cosbologist
SoSH Member
Sep 1, 2006
1,587
Tamworth, NH
Andrew said:
 
Uh, what? He was coming off a season where he hit .272/.339/.500 with 20 homers and an OPS+ of 120. The Twins stupidly decided he was expendable, but that does not mean he was close to out of baseball. If the Red Sox hadn't grabbed him another team would have. 
Not on his way out of baseball, but some descriptions have him sounding pretty desperate (weren't some accounts that he was in tears when Pedro decided to call the Red Sox and get them to sign Papi)?  Doesn't mean he used, but if a writer is looking for reasons not to vote for Papi, they have plenty of anecdotes to point at.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
I hate Bonger's speculation. Not to totally kill the thread but if you said hey listen Taliban I don't think you should stone women anymore but yeah that woman is probably an adulteress you aren't helping the woman or your cause.  (for those that don't understand analogy - I am not calling steroid talk as important as violence against women)

Regardless it is hardly surprising to me to hear from the anti DH crowd and this is why it will be an impediment to his entry, because there are also purity of the game types among the voters. Even if hating the DH feels like fake ass elitism to me in this day and age.
 
Beyond that, it's hard for us to tell what would have happened if Ortiz had merely played an OK 1B his entire career instead of DH'ing.  He seems among those uniquely suited to DH which I guess counts against him in the "I hate DH" world but it is odd to me that anyone who is a Red Sox fans would hate the DH since they are arguably the team that has gotten the most value out of the position over the last 40 years and especially in regard to Ortiz, they have been a top 3 offense almost every year of his Red Sox career.  So, OK, he didn't play a position so if you are making the "Hall of Value by advanced counting statistics" he would fall well short.  But, the honest truth is that there has never really been a compelling reason for him not to be DH, if you assume his only other position is 1B (and you should).
 
2003-2005.  Sox had Kevin Millar at 1B and under contract.  Millar could also play the corner OF but you had Ramirez in LF and Nixon in RF who weren't going to be displaced.  So what is the value to the Red Sox of not having Ortiz DH?  You could argue that Millar along with Bill Mueller was blocking Youkilis, but this doesn't really change if you shuffle Ortiz around.
 
2006-2009.  To make room for Mike Lowell Youk moved to 1B and was excellent there.  Still had Manny in LF.  Not sure how you break Ortiz into playing the field more and still help the team.  I guess you could argue that if Ortiz played in the field more WMP would have gotten more of a chance?  
 
2010.  Now finally we have one year where Ortiz's full-time DH status may have hurt the team, if you assume that VMart was a terrible catcher and the reason the Sox staff wasn't as good as it could have been this year.  Though that's mostly Beckett and Lackey.  But anyway, this would require removal of Ortiz anyway since Youkilis was excellent at 1B and Adrian Beltre was excellent at 3B so hard to find Ortiz a position in the field.  Also VMart wasn't terrible anyway.
 
2011.  Youk back to 3B to make way for Adrian Gonzalez.  Gonzalez has no position other than 1B either so basically if you are complaining about Ortiz the DH you would have to swap them and that's the best you could do.  Now you could argue that if they had Ortiz as a 1B they don't feel the need to trade for Gonzalez, but making arguments that the team shouldn't acquire great hitters in hindsight is kind of stupid.  No offense.
 
2012.  I'm not sure who would have earned playing time if Ortiz were in the field after the Punto trade.
 
2013-2014.  OK if you think Mike Carp should have gotten a bigger opportunity...but he still didn't hit as well as Ortiz even when he was hitting well.  And in 2014 Ortiz and Napoli were the two best hitters on the team (I know about Napoli's late season fall off) so not sure how you would improve it. 
 
2015.  OK if you wanted to cut bait on Napoli earlier you would have a point.
 
I guess my point is that context does matter and the Red Sox during Ortiz's career have largely had good bats at 1B and not a lot of opportunity to bring in some other non-field guy.  I understand and remember arguments from people that the Sox would be better off with Manny as a DH and that's fine but they would have needed to also find a LF who could eclipse Ortiz's value, etc. and this actually only applies to less than half of his Sox career.  And while it is easy to say "just get defensive whiz XYZ" in reality it is not that easy, and in reality the Red Sox won 3 World Series with Ortiz at DH, won 90 games 8 of his 13 years (plus 89 in 2010 and 86 in 2006), led the AL in offense 5 of those years, finished in the top 3 in 10, with two of the bad three offense years being the punt years of 2012 and 2014.  So, within context, it is hard to make an argument that the Red Sox didn't get enough value out of David Ortiz that is based on anything but idle speculation or the idea that they should have won more WS.
 
So while I think it is fair to discount a bit for the DH, in a practical team building sense, I find that you can put a DH alongside 1B, and this is the way I would consider David Ortiz, and why I keep naming guys like McGriff and Delgado as peers.
 

MuzzyField

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Weren't there over 100 names on the "anonymous" list? 
 
What are the odds that by the time Papi is on the HOF ballot a few players not outed like Papi are already in the Hall?
 
Once the protective shield is broken, the best of the era will hopefully enter and provide a truthful context to a period in baseball history that had issues, but shouldn't be dismissed as if it didn't happen.
 

sheamonu

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 11, 2004
1,342
Dublin, Ireland
MuzzyField said:
Weren't there over 100 names on the "anonymous" list? 
 
What are the odds that by the time Papi is on the HOF ballot a few players not outed like Papi are already in the Hall?
 
Once the protective shield is broken, the best of the era will hopefully enter and provide a truthful context to a period in baseball history that had issues, but shouldn't be dismissed as if it didn't happen.
Good point - once the dam breaks and someone like Bagwell or Piazza gets in the PED argument for someone like Papi becomes much less important. The DH controversy remains. To me the argument that a DH must be among the greatest hitters ever is unfair. If baseball were to create a new position - such as "roving fielder" and, forty years from now there was a consensus as to who the greatest rover of all time was then, certainly, you'd have to recognise the value of the position and let the player in even if he doesn't rank among the all time elites by other measures. This is basically what happened with relievers as that position developed. The DH exists as a /u/position/u/ - and Ortiz is the most impactful person to ever play that position. He is hurt, in a number of ways, by the Twins failure to use him properly during the first half dozen years of his career. But when you bundle his peak years there is no team that would not immediately slot him in at DH - add in the postseason and other intangibles and he gets in to Cooperstown. ( I know people hate to acknowledge "intangibles" as a criteria - but in a realistic discussion it must be acknowledged that this has always been a major driver surrounding enshrinement (Rabbit Maranville says hello).
 

biollante

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 22, 2001
9,825
Land formerly of Sowheag
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.
 

steveluck7

Member
SoSH Member
May 10, 2007
3,994
Burrillville, RI
Sean McAdam on the Baseball show on CSNNE last night said that, knowing what we know now, he won't be voting for Ortiz due to the "failed PED test"
 

Boggs26

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
1,152
Ashburnham, MA
That shows a great deal of critical thinking on McAdam's part - definitely shouldn't vote for someone because they probably (but not definitely) failed a test for an unknown substance that may or may not have been against the rules at the time it was (or was not) taken.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
McAdam is a good example of why hot take journalism erases the brain. I'm not saying he doesn't really hold that position, but once upon a time he would have at least gone into all the details of why and done some research. Instead like his peers it is constant verbal diarrhea, which apparently is what the audience wants.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
Now that he's hit the big 500 - I was trying to find a good rate stat comp, and I think it may be Vladimir Guerrero.
 
Vladi - .318/.379/.553.  A.390 wOBA, and wRC+ of 136
Papi - .284/.378/.547. Also a .390 wOBA and wRC+ of 138.
 
Papi is 4th worst all time in BsR and Vladi is 12th, so both gave back a lot of offensive value on the bases.
Vladi was also a huge liability in the outfield once he lost a step.
While I think Vladimir will get some HoF consideration, I think he will fall well short and maybe get 30-40% of the votes at it's peak.
Papi has the late productive career thing, clutchiness, and post season history in his favor, so I think he is a much more likely candidate, with the counting stats largely in his favor.
 

behindthepen

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
6,236
Section 41
smastroyin said:
McAdam is a good example of why hot take journalism erases the brain. I'm not saying he doesn't really hold that position, but once upon a time he would have at least gone into all the details of why and done some research. Instead like his peers it is constant verbal diarrhea, which apparently is what the audience wants.
To his credit, McAdam clarified that he's not voting for ANYONE that has the steroid odor.  My problem with his strategy is that the vast majority of Papi's HoF credentials were established during a period of testing.   Not to mention he got significantly better after testing, not worse, and there hasn't been a sniff of steroids since.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
Yeah I was reading some old Papi threads here and of course it's McAdam who asked why it took a week for Ortiz to have a press conference after the data leak.  You know, like, why did you decide to talk to the MLBPA, your teammates, your team management, etc. before coming to us and spilling the beans.
 
What this largely means is it's my own fucking fault for not remembering that McAdam is a steroid witch hunt clown who doesn't deserve the first iota of my respect.  Which is too bad, I liked him back in the day.
 

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,104
Are the various HOF advanced stats useful predictors for Ortiz?
 
He seems to be comfortably in-line or above HOF average for some (Gray Ink, HOF Monitor, HOF Standards), while a couple others seem out of reach (Black Ink and JAWS).
 
These don't do much to account for defensive value & positional differences which favor Ortiz.  OTOH he also has some positive intangibles going for him, though the jury is still out whether or how much he'll get dinged for suspected PED.
 
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/o/ortizda01.shtml
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
JAWS accounts for defensive and positional differences because it is WAR based.
 
Ortiz doesn't look great by WAR - if you gave him credit in JAWS for being a 1B (since there is no DH category but DHs are necessarily penalized in WAR) he would move up 28th or 29th in JAWS.
 
Ortiz will not get in on WAR.  Even if he accumulates another couple of seasons like 2015 he doesn't move up the WAR/JAWS list much (28th without position re-adjustment as I describe above), 23rd with it)  But, in raw numbers he would be just outside the top 10 in HR, in the top 10 for 2B, top 20 RBI, and over 2500 hits.  So his counting stats would look that much stronger.
 

drbretto

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
12,080
Concord, NH
threecy said:
At this juncture, that doesn't matter; being rumored or connected has been enough to keep folks out of the Hall.  McGwire, Bagwell, Bonds, etc. were never suspended for steroids.
 
I realize this was posted a while ago, but I just popped in. I think the only thing you're demonstrating here is that a positive test isn't the point. McGuire and Bonds were the poster boys for steroids. Ortiz failed one test for something and even HE isn't allowed to know what it was. His name hasn't been mentioned in any steroid discussion besides that. He was never really under any serious suspicion and it's been long enough that that report shouldn't hold any water. 
 
As for stat-worthiness in general, don't forget the Ortiz is very well liked by the media and has been a baseball ambassador for years. Personality is a huge part of it, too. If they like you, they aren't sitting there wondering if you've accumulated enough RBI's. They like him first, then justify it with the numbers, not the other way around. I think he'll get every benefit of the doubt he can.
 
I think he's a lock and a well-deserved one. 
 

CR67dream

blue devils forevah!
Dope
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
7,234
I'm going home
Here is a link to a discussion from 2010 regarding Ortiz's situation.   http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/56690-will-ortiz-ever-set-the-record-straight/
 
The fact that it was reported that his test was inconclusive, not positive, is something that never gets taken into consideration, and I actually found the link by googling "Ortiz test inconclusive". I had no memory of participating in that conversation prior to having it pop up third in the search results and opening it up. Mind. Blown.
 
In any event, Ortiz's case is really unique, and when it comes time, 7 years or more down the road, I hope that  it is pointed out, and often.  
 
And SJH, holy shit , I had erased Paul F. Todd from my brain.... Yikes!
 

RoyalOrange

New Member
Jul 24, 2009
172
@grimshaw because my work computer is not letting me quote your Vlad post
 
Great find, I had no idea their rate stats were so close. The last big difference, other than the ones you cited, is the fact that Ortiz will have 1,000+ more plate appearances than Vlad when it's all said and done (he's currently sitting at about 400 more than Vlad finished with). Granted, his rate stats should come down a tad due to that as well.
 

Boggs26

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
1,152
Ashburnham, MA
To me, the real question is how much more can he pad the counting stats. 2500 hits, 550 hrs and 1800 rbi seems reasonably within reach with either one "normal" year and a down year, or two slowish decline years. And if he has 2 more "normal" years then all bets are off. He could conceivably get to a point where we're asking if 600 hrs is crazy.

Before anyone tells me I'm nuts, let's play this out. 2016 he plays right in line with the last couple years (130 H, 35 HR, 100 RBI) the Sox likely take his option at that point since he's shown minimal decline. 2017 let's say he sees a small amount of decline (120 H, 30HR, 90RBI).at that point he's at about 570 homers... Do the Sox agree to another year to year contract?

Of course Ortiz could fall off a cliff at any moment due to age, but if instead he has a show decline that keeps him viable for 3 more years, 600 homers isn't out of the question. Is he first ballot at that point?
 

glasspusher

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
9,973
Oakland California
Boggs26 said:
To me, the real question is how much more can he pad the counting stats. 2500 hits, 550 hrs and 1800 rbi seems reasonably within reach with either one "normal" year and a down year, or two slowish decline years. And if he has 2 more "normal" years then all bets are off. He could conceivably get to a point where we're asking if 600 hrs is crazy.

Before anyone tells me I'm nuts, let's play this out. 2016 he plays right in line with the last couple years (130 H, 35 HR, 100 RBI) the Sox likely take his option at that point since he's shown minimal decline. 2017 let's say he sees a small amount of decline (120 H, 30HR, 90RBI).at that point he's at about 570 homers... Do the Sox agree to another year to year contract?

Of course Ortiz could fall off a cliff at any moment due to age, but if instead he has a show decline that keeps him viable for 3 more years, 600 homers isn't out of the question. Is he first ballot at that point?
 
If he plays out the next two years like this one, I'll start worrying that he's made out of the same plastic that Bartolo Colon is.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
glasspusher said:
 
If he plays out the next two years like this one, I'll start worrying that he's made out of the same plastic that Bartolo Colon is.
 
Scary fact: After tonight his 2015 wRC+ is 138....which also happens to be his career wRC+. 
 
It's still true that at his age, the bottom could fall out soon and quickly. But it has to be admitted that David Ortiz's decline, so far, is a no-show. 
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,633
Springfield, VA
behindthepen said:
To his credit, McAdam clarified that he's not voting for ANYONE that has the steroid odor.  My problem with his strategy is that the vast majority of Papi's HoF credentials were established during a period of testing.   Not to mention he got significantly better after testing, not worse, and there hasn't been a sniff of steroids since.
 
More to the point, the vast majority of his career came after the steroid era finally came to a close.  So comparing him to guys like Bagwell, whose entire career was during the steroid era, is meaningless.
 

biollante

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 22, 2001
9,825
Land formerly of Sowheag
I think that with one more year like this he will be in the Hall of Fame.  I would really like it if he started the year in better form, took some more days off, and made us all happy.
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,401
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
AB in DC said:
 
More to the point, the vast majority of his career came after the steroid era finally came to a close.  So comparing him to guys like Bagwell, whose entire career was during the steroid era, is meaningless.
 
Not really disagreeing but ..
 
Was the Steroid Era just for hitters? Of course not - Roger Clemens being Exhibit A. So, a clean Ortiz playing against steroid era pitchers would expect to have inferior numbers that his current stats. Making blanket statements about the "Steroid Era" seems equally meaningless.
 
Just sayin'
 
For the record, I don't think the current testing procedures are much of a deterrent to a dedicated cheater. The history of doping in the Olympics - and all the BALCO stuff - shows that the cheaters are always ahead of the curve. Remember, ARod only got caught because of the paperwork. 
 
If you are a millionaire professional athlete prone to chemical enhancements - with access to the best doping chemists in the world - its an absolute miracle if you DO get caught.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
AB in DC said:
 
More to the point, the vast majority of his career came after the steroid era finally came to a close.  So comparing him to guys like Bagwell, whose entire career was during the steroid era, is meaningless.
 
When was that, exactly? (This is only partly a rhetorical/smartass question; I'm curious what date you would assign to this development.)
 
I think it would be pretty easy to come up with a narrative that has him using through 2006, stopping in 2007, declining through 2009 and then presumably finding a new test-foiling strategy in 2010 that has served him well since. I'm not saying I think that's what really happened, just that that narrative is available and likely to be convincing to people who are predisposed to accept it.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
The problem is, and this is why it is such a stupid circular argument, if you believe that there are magic pills and that the magic pills can't be tested for, then there is literally no way to stop the presumption.  
 
As I have explained earlier in this thread, ARod (and other BALCO guys) were caught based on paperwork, but also based on usage of a substance that was not reliably tested in the time frame that was being investigated.  As well, he and all of the BALCO guys are performing great even with BALCO disbanded and HGH tests in place.  I know, the argument is merely that they found another source and something else that can't be tested for that happens to improve the really specific muscle ability related to baseball.  Sure, fine.
 

What we can learn from the history of substance abuse is that suppliers of products that are in high demand are not stingy with sharing.  Sure, maybe David Ortiz is willing to pay $100,000 per pill for exclusivity, but what if you could get $20,000 per pill from 20 guys?  Even if the pill itself costs $10K you are making a lot more money in the latter situation.  Even if you are worried about saturation, if you get David Ortiz and someone he trusts each willing to pay $75K you are making a lot more money.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
smastroyin said:
 
The problem is, and this is why it is such a stupid circular argument, if you believe that there are magic pills and that the magic pills can't be tested for, then there is literally no way to stop the presumption.  
 
As I have explained earlier in this thread, ARod (and other BALCO guys) were caught based on paperwork, but also based on usage of a substance that was not reliably tested in the time frame that was being investigated.  As well, he and all of the BALCO guys are performing great even with BALCO disbanded and HGH tests in place.  I know, the argument is merely that they found another source and something else that can't be tested for that happens to improve the really specific muscle ability related to baseball.  Sure, fine.
 

What we can learn from the history of substance abuse is that suppliers of products that are in high demand are not stingy with sharing.  Sure, maybe David Ortiz is willing to pay $100,000 per pill for exclusivity, but what if you could get $20,000 per pill from 20 guys?  Even if the pill itself costs $10K you are making a lot more money in the latter situation.  Even if you are worried about saturation, if you get David Ortiz and someone he trusts each willing to pay $75K you are making a lot more money.

 
 
It's a little more complicated that that.   If baseball wanted to, it could archive blood and urine to capture past doping.   Players could do that voluntarily even.  So there's no reason why a really strict sampling/storage/testing regime couldn't be set up.  In reality, Baseball does not really have an incentive to do so however.  It only really needs to appear to test stringently, and to smack down players who sort of "openly" cheat.  
 
Guys like Ortiz who are "caught in the circular argument" really have no one to blame but themselves.  (I say this liking Ortiz and believing that he's far more likely than not had a "natural" career.)  
 
But the "circular argument" only practically applies to HOF-ish caliber players who are accused of PED use.  Most of those guys are multi-millionares anyway - so it's about pride and legacy and ego and fan-identification.  It's about "did he" or "didn't he" and "are the rings tainted."  It's never about the marginal clean player who gets squeezed out of playing time, nor about the guys who are pressured into PED use.  
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
Rovin Romine said:
 
It's a little more complicated that that.   If baseball wanted to, it could archive blood and urine to capture past doping.   Players could do that voluntarily even.  So there's no reason why a really strict sampling/storage/testing regime couldn't be set up.  In reality, Baseball does not really have an incentive to do so however.  It only really needs to appear to test stringently, and to smack down players who sort of "openly" cheat.  
 
Guys like Ortiz who are "caught in the circular argument" really have no one to blame but themselves.  (I say this liking Ortiz and believing that he's far more likely than not had a "natural" career.)  
 
But the "circular argument" only practically applies to HOF-ish caliber players who are accused of PED use.  Most of those guys are multi-millionares anyway - so it's about pride and legacy and ego and fan-identification.  It's about "did he" or "didn't he" and "are the rings tainted."  It's never about the marginal clean player who gets squeezed out of playing time, nor about the guys who are pressured into PED use.  
 
I don't want to get into a steroid argument, because people like you are steroid believers as I say and I may as well be arguing about UFOs or vaccines or the illuminati.  And that's my point.
 
I'm surprised to see a defense lawyer (particularly an anti-war on drugs guy) play the guilty until proven innocent card.  But this is the whole problem with PED belief.  And again, the reason I don't typically argue it.  But the logic, to be frank, is fucking nonsense.  It's basically people who take their opinion of what tainted is, and then any evidence is debunked with one reason or another.  
 
I don't think the game was "clean."  I also don't think PEDs make marginal guys good or good guys HoFers.  And I think based on statisical evidence that the effects were systemic.  Which would mean that you would have to believe nearly everyone was using.  And that includes throughout the minors because it's not like MLEs got screwed way out of whack.  And then, if everyone is using, or such a substantial population that "clean" players are the bottom of the curve instead of the middle, then why are you punishing the guys who put up the best numbers among the population?  Should Jimmie Foxx and Hank Greenberg (among others) be taken out of the Hall because they got to play during a purpose made live ball era?  Should we reconsider Whitey Ford and Bob Gibson because maybe they were very very good but really they got to pitch in the lowest offense era since 1917?  No, but because we can insert a moralistic component the "steroid era" is some kind of bane on the history of baseball.  
 
The next thing though is that if nearly everyone was using, why didn't we have a whistleblower or 2 or 6?  Is peer pressure enough if as you say guys are losing jobs just from their choice to remain clean?  Maybe it is, but it seems odd to me that it would be so complete.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
smastroyin said:
 
I don't want to get into a steroid argument, because people like you are steroid believers as I say and I may as well be arguing about UFOs or vaccines or the illuminati.  And that's my point.
 
I'm surprised to see a defense lawyer play the guilty until proven innocent card.  But this is the whole problem with PED belief.  And again, the reason I don't typically argue it.  But the logic, to be frank, is fucking nonsense.
 
It's not really "guilty until proven innocent."  It's more like the facts are what they are.  1) the testing system is a joke.  2) PED users continue to get caught, often after comprehensively beating their contemporary testing systems.  3) we only have this discussion in baseball re: HOF candidates.  
 
I don't "believe" that Oritz used PEDs.  In fact, I think it's unlikely.  So I don't know what you mean by "PED believer."
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
Rovin Romine said:
 
It's not really "guilty until proven innocent."  It's more like the facts are what they are.  1) the testing system is a joke.  2) PED users continue to get caught, often after comprehensively beating their contemporary testing systems.  3) we only have this discussion in baseball re: HOF candidates.  
 
I don't "believe" that Oritz used PEDs.  In fact, I think it's unlikely.  So I don't know what you mean by "PED believer."
 
Who?
 
Back 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.
 
 
2015:  Ervin Santana, Jemry Mejia, Andrew McKirkhain failed tests for steroids
2014:  Cameron Maybin failed a test (for amphetamines) 
2013:  Troy Patton failed a test because he took Adderall, Miguel Tejada failed two tests for amphetamines.  
 
Then you have the biogenisis thing which I guess is where you are saying all the recents have been busted by a paper trail?  (ARod, Nelson Cruz, Jhonny Peralta, partly Ryan Braun but he also failed tests) But that punishment was for previous usage and connection (from 2009-2012, for HGH which indeed was not fully tested in that time).
 
2012:  Carlos Ruiz, Bartolo Colon, Marlon Byrd, Yasmani Grandal, Freddy Galvis all failed tests
2011:  Manny Ramirez we don't know details, he retired instead
2010:  Edison Volquez failed a test, said it was because of fertility drug
2009:  Manny Ramirez failed test, said it was from a prescription drug, JC Romero failed test, said it was for over the counter supplement that he checked with MLBPA on beforehand.
 
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2007
17,184
Washington
Who?
 
Back 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.
 
Then you have the biogenisis thing which I guess is where you are saying all the recents have been busted by a paper trail? (ARod, Nelson Cruz, Jhonny Peralta, partly Ryan Braun but he also failed tests) But that punishment was for previous usage and connection (from 2009-2012, for HGH which indeed was not fully tested in that time).
The biogenesis thing wasn't just about HGH, but also testosterone.

This article from a few years ago talks about it in some detail. Baseball has made a lot of improvements on testosterone testing, but is sure seems like there are still some challenges, particularly with fast-acting testosterone and off-season testing.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/health/up-to-20-major-league-players-to-be-suspended-but-not-because-of-stringent-tests-b9939132z1-215413631.html