Give the debate a short break and admire the greatness that is David Ortiz with some graphs by Ian York and gifs by Damian Dydyn.
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.
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.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.
"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."
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.Toe Nash said:This isn't semantics. He was never suspended for steroids.
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.
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.
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)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.
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.
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.
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.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).
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.
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.
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.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.
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).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.
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 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
The biogenesis thing wasn't just about HGH, but also testosterone.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).