SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Hall of Fame 2022 - David Ortiz Elected
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,989
|
Post by jimoh on Nov 28, 2021 20:54:09 GMT -5
.... Ryan Howard is the worst player on this ballot. I would entertain an argument that his two-year peak (2005-2006) makes him a better Hall of Fame candidate than AJ Pierzynski, but Pierzynski had more 2.0+ bWAR seasons and MANY more 1.0+ bWAR seasons. EDIT: Like I can see absolutely no reason why someone could vote for Howard and not Justin Morneau, who has the exact same qualifications as Howard but then was a good player for more than two years and is still WAY south of a Hall of Famer. Ryan Howard belongs in the Half a Hall category, with Mattingly, Dale Murphy, Nomar, and others: played at basic HOF level for about 5-8 years. 198 home runs in 4 years is pretty good.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 29, 2021 9:13:53 GMT -5
.... Ryan Howard is the worst player on this ballot. I would entertain an argument that his two-year peak (2005-2006) makes him a better Hall of Fame candidate than AJ Pierzynski, but Pierzynski had more 2.0+ bWAR seasons and MANY more 1.0+ bWAR seasons. EDIT: Like I can see absolutely no reason why someone could vote for Howard and not Justin Morneau, who has the exact same qualifications as Howard but then was a good player for more than two years and is still WAY south of a Hall of Famer. Ryan Howard belongs in the Half a Hall category, with Mattingly, Dale Murphy, Nomar, and others: played at basic HOF level for about 5-8 years. 198 home runs in 4 years is pretty good. 198 home runs in four years is very good, but it's not Hall of Fame production if you do nothing else well. Howard's career bWAR roughly matches up to the best two seasons for Murphy, Mattingly, or Garciaparra. Howard is more like if Mark McGwire never got good again after his bad 1991 season, and I'm bearish on McGwire's Hall of Fame merits.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Dec 4, 2021 12:33:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 4, 2021 12:58:03 GMT -5
By that logic, any late bloomer should be suspect. And Ortiz’s last season in MN was actually pretty good. Maybe he should ask them why the foolishly gave up on him?
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 4, 2021 13:00:27 GMT -5
"Player started performing well in his mid-20s and then succeeded consistently across 15 professional seasons? Smells fishy. Better keep him out of the hall of fame."
ADD: Also Jeff Kent was a pretty mediocre hitter until he suddenly exploded at age 30.
I believe there is also some circumstantial evidence that Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens may have used performance enhancing drugs.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,837
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Dec 4, 2021 15:53:01 GMT -5
Damn, my fears with Ortiz are being realized. I thought it was unlikely he'd make it this year and that he might never make it. We've already seen several voters bring up the PED issue as a reason for omitting him. He's at only 44 percent so far. Yes, I know it's early. But I have to think there are enough other voters who feel the same way and will keep him out.
And remember, for a guy to make it he has be be well above 75 percent in the public votes because the electors who do not disclose their ballots in advance tend to be stingier.
Gotta love these guys who vote for Bonds and Clemens, but not Papi. The system is broken.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 4, 2021 16:10:13 GMT -5
Damn, my fears with Ortiz are being realized. I thought it was unlikely he'd make it this year and that he might never make it. We've already seen several voters bring up the PED issue as a reason for omitting him. He's at only 44 percent so far. Yes, I know it's early. But I have to think there are enough other voters who feel the same way and will keep him out. And remember, for a guy to make it he has be be well above 75 percent in the public votes because the electors who do not disclose their ballots in advance tend to be stingier. Gotta love these guys who vote for Bonds and Clemens, but not Papi. The system is broken. Evidently (as the ballot posted above illustrates) David Ortiz is losing at least some votes due to PED silliness. But if he winds up at 44% that's actually higher than Edgar Martinex started out at (36%) in his first year on the ballot, and Martinez had by most measures a superior career, though one could fairly credit Papi for the legendary postseason performances. Also I think only one person who started at 50%+ has failed to make it into the HOF, and Ortiz will be close enough to that marker that I think we will make it in eventually. But I never did expect it to happen on the first ballot.
Also I don't think there's anything broken in the fact that Bonds and Clemens got votes from people who didn't vote for Papi. Bonds and Clemens were way better!
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,837
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Dec 4, 2021 16:33:08 GMT -5
Damn, my fears with Ortiz are being realized. I thought it was unlikely he'd make it this year and that he might never make it. We've already seen several voters bring up the PED issue as a reason for omitting him. He's at only 44 percent so far. Yes, I know it's early. But I have to think there are enough other voters who feel the same way and will keep him out. And remember, for a guy to make it he has be be well above 75 percent in the public votes because the electors who do not disclose their ballots in advance tend to be stingier. Gotta love these guys who vote for Bonds and Clemens, but not Papi. The system is broken. Evidently (as the ballot posted above illustrates) David Ortiz is losing at least some votes due to PED silliness. But if he winds up at 44% that's actually higher than Edgar Martinex started out at (36%) in his first year on the ballot, and Martinez had by most measures a superior career, though one could fairly credit Papi for the legendary postseason performances. Also I think only one person who started at 50%+ has failed to make it into the HOF, and Ortiz will be close enough to that marker that I think we will make it in eventually. But I never did expect it to happen on the first ballot.
Also I don't think there's anything broken in the fact that Bonds and Clemens got votes from people who didn't vote for Papi. Bonds and Clemens were way better!
Yes, they were better in many ways. But Ortiz - by any analysis that doesn't include PEDs - is a HOFer. Every non-PED guy with more career HRs than him is in or will be in (Pujols) and only one - Reggie - is the post-season legend that Papi is. Thus, I have to think that many voters who are not supporting him are making that choice because of the PED issue. I hope you're right about him making a nice climb to 75 percent. My concern is that his climb might fall short just like Bonds and Clemens are failing short. It appears that about 30-35 percent of the voters will never support someone they suspect of PEDs.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 4, 2021 17:16:43 GMT -5
There's a good argument that Ortiz is the worst player with 500 home runs. I'd vote for him too, but he was a DH only without other overwhelming counting stats. A totally unsentimental case puts him pretty borderline statistically. I happen to think being *totally* unsentimental about a baseball player's Hall of Fame standards is silly, but I'm also not sure it's clear that he was better than Gary Sheffield. And I also think it's fair for someone to consider steroids as a negative for players they consider borderline like Ortiz and Sosa but also vote yes on Bonds and Clemens based on the fact they are not borderline.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 4, 2021 17:39:33 GMT -5
There's a good argument that Ortiz is the worst player with 500 home runs. I'd vote for him too, but he was a DH only without other overwhelming counting stats. A totally unsentimental case puts him pretty borderline statistically. I happen to think being *totally* unsentimental about a baseball player's Hall of Fame standards is silly, but I'm also not sure it's clear that he was better than Gary Sheffield. And I also think it's fair for someone to consider steroids as a negative for players they consider borderline like Ortiz and Sosa but also vote yes on Bonds and Clemens based on the fact they are not borderline. He has much better counting stats than Willie McCovey. Papi is top-25 in HRs and RBIs, and he had a respectable .286 BA. I don’t disagree with a good deal of your analysis, and the fact that he was exclusively a DH would hamper him even vs. McCovey. Plus the suspicions of PED. But if there weren’t the latter and he was even a career long butcher at 1b, he’d almost certainly be first ballot.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,837
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Dec 4, 2021 17:45:46 GMT -5
There's a good argument that Ortiz is the worst player with 500 home runs. I'd vote for him too, but he was a DH only without other overwhelming counting stats. A totally unsentimental case puts him pretty borderline statistically. I happen to think being *totally* unsentimental about a baseball player's Hall of Fame standards is silly, but I'm also not sure it's clear that he was better than Gary Sheffield. And I also think it's fair for someone to consider steroids as a negative for players they consider borderline like Ortiz and Sosa but also vote yes on Bonds and Clemens based on the fact they are not borderline.A DH compared to position players is usually going to come up short by many measures - WAR being the most obvious one. The same could be said for RPs when compared to SPs. As far as which steroid guys a voter should support (bolded), it depends on what your personal policy is. This is all YMMV territory because there isn't a defined standard. My standard is that if I think steroids were beyond a reasonable doubt a big part of a guy's career, I'm out. I don't go to the extreme of excluding guys because of whispers. I would have voted for Piazza, Biggio and Bagwell (though based on Bagwell's answer to the question after he was elected, I'm sure he juiced). I would not have voted for I-Rod because I was convinced before his election that he was a cheat. If I could go back and magically sub Gary Sheffield's 14-year prime onto RS rosters from 2003 to 2016 in place of Ortiz, I'd pass without hesitation. Ditto for a number of other juiced and non-juiced guys with 500 HRs. Put many of those guys on the RS in place of Ortiz and there'd be less mileage on the duck boats.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,837
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Dec 4, 2021 18:20:33 GMT -5
There's a good argument that Ortiz is the worst player with 500 home runs. I'd vote for him too, but he was a DH only without other overwhelming counting stats. A totally unsentimental case puts him pretty borderline statistically. I happen to think being *totally* unsentimental about a baseball player's Hall of Fame standards is silly, but I'm also not sure it's clear that he was better than Gary Sheffield. And I also think it's fair for someone to consider steroids as a negative for players they consider borderline like Ortiz and Sosa but also vote yes on Bonds and Clemens based on the fact they are not borderline. He has much better counting stats than Willie McCovey. Papi is top-25 in HRs and RBIs, and he had a respectable .286 BA. I don’t disagree with a good deal of your analysis, and the fact that he was exclusively a DH would hamper him even vs. McCovey. Plus the suspicions of PED. But if there weren’t the latter and he was even a career long butcher at 1b, he’d almost certainly be first ballot. Yes, in fact there are plenty of sluggers whose HOF credentials we don't question who didn't have 500 HRs or even come close. Hank Greenberg comes to mind. He popped 331 HRs. Even if hadn't missed three prime years due to WWII, he wouldn't have approached 541 HRs. He had 1,628 hits, nearly 850 fewer than Papi.
|
|
|
Post by lostinnewjersey on Dec 4, 2021 19:00:01 GMT -5
(1) It's the "Hall of Fame," not the "Hall of Most WAR." (2) Omitting someone because he was a DH is absurd. For almost fifty years, that role has been part of the game in AL ballparks. Just as the best shortstops, left fielders, and relief pitchers get into the HoF, so should the best designated hitters. (3) The PED objection is bogus. He played most of his career under a rigorous testing regimen and never failed a test. His name appeared on a questionable list from 2003 that was supposed to remain anonymous. (4) Without David Ortiz, it is quite possible the Boston Red Sox would have waited a century between championships. No player has ever meant more to a team than David Ortiz did to the Boston Red Sox from 2004 to 2016.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 4, 2021 19:15:29 GMT -5
There's a good argument that Ortiz is the worst player with 500 home runs. I'd vote for him too, but he was a DH only without other overwhelming counting stats. A totally unsentimental case puts him pretty borderline statistically. I happen to think being *totally* unsentimental about a baseball player's Hall of Fame standards is silly, but I'm also not sure it's clear that he was better than Gary Sheffield. And I also think it's fair for someone to consider steroids as a negative for players they consider borderline like Ortiz and Sosa but also vote yes on Bonds and Clemens based on the fact they are not borderline. I don't think it's a *great* argument to say that Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro, Ernie Banks, and Eddie Murray were all better players than Big Papi. Only 43 guys with 7000+ career PAs have a higher wRC+, and the only ones of those 43 who aren't in the HOF (and not still active or currently eligible) are Dick Allen and Lance Berkman. He's 17th all time in HRs, and only 8 of the guys above him have a wRC+ more than 2 points higher than him. He even had more hits than 5 of the guys who are ahead of him in home runs. 2472 hits is a pretty good counting stat... 104th all time.
On the other hand, Fred McGriff is 103rd all time; he also had 493 homers, and a nearly identical AVG and OBP - but a lower SLG (.552 to .509) and a slightly lower wRC+ (140 to 134). No real defensive value. That's a pretty close analogue, and he topped out at only 40% of the vote.
On the third hand, Reggie Jackson is also very comparable: 563 homers, 139 wRC+, 2584 hits, known for postseason heroics, no real defensive value. And he got in on the first ballot with 93.6%.
So, that's the hall of fame for ya, I guess. Shrug emoji.
|
|
|
Post by trajanacc on Dec 4, 2021 19:38:56 GMT -5
Is considering his postseason performance really being sentimental? I mean, all those playoff games have to count for something, right? It’s not like the MVP where voters are supposed to ignore anything that happens in the postseason.
Even if you just consider them as add-on games, not giving them any more weight than regular season games, his postseason body of work has to push him ahead of some of the other guys being discussed.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Dec 4, 2021 21:45:44 GMT -5
Agree with the thought that for the HOF post-season performance, for the guys with the opportunity to be there, should be counted as a plus. Ortiz is a great example of someone who I think has a borderline case except for that he was the heart of several championship teams, and played great on the way. That should matter.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Dec 4, 2021 22:43:12 GMT -5
Doesn’t make any sense to not be in favor of Schilling due to his character but then be in favor of Clemens. If thats your reason you should be consistent.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Dec 4, 2021 23:14:39 GMT -5
Doesn’t make any sense to not be in favor of Schilling due to his character but then be in favor of Clemens. If thats your reason you should be consistent. Clemens might be a turd but hes never said anything remotely racist that I know of. Schilling on the other hand....
|
|
|
Post by taiwansox on Dec 4, 2021 23:31:58 GMT -5
Doesn’t make any sense to not be in favor of Schilling due to his character but then be in favor of Clemens. If thats your reason you should be consistent. Clemens might be a turd but hes never said anything remotely racist that I know of. Schilling on the other hand.... Idk he played with racially diverse teams his whole career and that never really came up, it’s more related to his dumb political career. Also if racism is a Hall of Fame standard, we’re going to need to go in and expunge a bunch of people and the Sox are going to need to get rid of #4 off their retired numbers list
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Dec 4, 2021 23:33:40 GMT -5
Clemens might be a turd but hes never said anything remotely racist that I know of. Schilling on the other hand.... Idk he played with racially diverse teams his whole career and that never really came up, it’s more related to his dumb political career. Also if racism is a Hall of Fame standard, we’re going to need to go in and expunge a bunch of people and the Sox are going to need to get rid of #4 off their retired numbers list Its not just Schillings political allegiance. He's shared some pretty messed up stuff on social media
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 4, 2021 23:42:50 GMT -5
Look, there is only one reason to vote no on Clemens. The guy is one of the five great pitchers in history. You leave him out of the Hall, it has a huge absence. Bonds, too. The rest of these guys, whatever their cases, they are not those two. It gets tricky to me because I see three options: 1) purity. Vote for no one with a whiff of taint. But then it is hearsay, innuendo, and you have already let some questionable guys in. 2) try to “deroid” guys. Clemens and Bonds are HOFers without roids, McGuire and Sosa, no way. The problem with this is it is conjectural and it leads to harder cases like Palmeiro. 3) ignore steroids. The downsides are obvious, rewards cheaters, probably lets in mediocre players like Sosa and McGuire.
I honestly am not sure where I stand.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Dec 5, 2021 0:00:41 GMT -5
Look, there is only one reason to vote no on Clemens. The guy is one of the five great pitchers in history. You leave him out of the Hall, it has a huge absence. Bonds, too. The rest of these guys, whatever their cases, they are not those two. It gets tricky to me because I see three options: 1) purity. Vote for no one with a whiff of taint. But then it is hearsay, innuendo, and you have already let some questionable guys in. 2) try to “deroid” guys. Clemens and Bonds are HOFers without roids, McGuire and Sosa, no way. The problem with this is it is conjectural and it leads to harder cases like Palmeiro. 3) ignore steroids. The downsides are obvious, rewards cheaters, probably lets in mediocre players like Sosa and McGuire. I honestly am not sure where I stand. The bolded is an interesting statement to think about xSteroids, and to be honest I'm not sure where I stand on that. So I looked at his career by Sox and post-Sox. With the Sox he had 80.8 career bWAR. That's more than Schilling's 80.5 bWAR and places him 26th all time for pitchers. That alone is HOF worthy (and in my opinion why he deserves a vote). After that, it really becomes a debate on how much his career was helped by steroids. Does he deserve the 58 bWAR he got? Probably not. But even if we take away half of that, 110 bWAR would be 6th all time. Clemens was great, it's just a shame his couldn't get away from his ego as he would have been a top-10 pitcher regardless if he stayed clean.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 5, 2021 1:02:30 GMT -5
Extremely annoying. If the voter did an ounce of research he might have noticed that Ortiz had minor league stats that indicated a future slugger was a real possibility. He might have learned that Ortiz was dealing with injuries and an old school manager whom he clashed with and capitulated to by "hitting like a little bitch" instead of slugging the natural way he was capable. Those two factors held down his numbers in Minnesota. Then maybe he did or maybe he didn't really test positive for something which could have easily been supplements that were legal at the time. When the Twins let Ortiz go, it's not like Pedro Martinez had to bound and gag Theo Epstein to convince him that Ortiz was worth taking a flier on. Epstein was on it. Bill James wanted them to get him. It was kind of unanimous, although Pedro did help the issue move forward. And eventually Theo cleared the roster enough with the Hillenbrand/Kim deal and then the Jeremy Giambi injury paved the way for Ortiz to play every day and he soon took off and became the hitter he was always capable of being. This "he was nothing but the steroids make him a monster" take is BS. The talent was always there. The Red Sox were the first team that really gave him a chance to harness it. And then through 13 seasons, from 2004 - 2016 he mashed the ball, yet there was never a positive PEDs test nor any lab controversy like A-Rod had. Lazy voters like him will prevent Ortiz from getting in. I was hoping that he'd at worst get in on the 2nd ballot, but now it might be one of those things where he has to wait 8 - 10 years which is utterly ridiculous. That he as a DH will hurt his WAR totals. Of course the DH had the defensive play of the 2004 World Series when he made a perfect throw to nab Jeff Suppan at 3b in a play that finished the Cardinals for the World Series. I know I'm preaching to the choir, but the Sox don't win 3 championships without him, and it's not like his regular season numbers stunk. He was a monster from nearly start to finish with the Sox, with that 2.5 year stretch that he was dealing with hammate issues and it caused a loop in his swing that took him a year to recover from. Once he did, and he rediscovered that he could still hit to the opposite field with authority, he was as menacing as he always was. After he dragged the 2013 team through the World Series to win the trophy he put up two strong seasons followed by a finale that might have been the best final season by a retiring player ever (or at least one that Ted Williams wouldn't have snickered at). David Ortiz should be a slam dunk HOFer, but I expect moronic voters won't take the time to really think about what Ortiz truly was, so they'll screw this up for awhile. Ortiz is highly visible so sooner or later he will make it, but I really wish it were sooner, preferably in 2022.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 5, 2021 2:18:19 GMT -5
Look, there is only one reason to vote no on Clemens. The guy is one of the five great pitchers in history. You leave him out of the Hall, it has a huge absence. Bonds, too. The rest of these guys, whatever their cases, they are not those two. It gets tricky to me because I see three options: 1) purity. Vote for no one with a whiff of taint. But then it is hearsay, innuendo, and you have already let some questionable guys in. 2) try to “deroid” guys. Clemens and Bonds are HOFers without roids, McGuire and Sosa, no way. The problem with this is it is conjectural and it leads to harder cases like Palmeiro. 3) ignore steroids. The downsides are obvious, rewards cheaters, probably lets in mediocre players like Sosa and McGuire. I honestly am not sure where I stand. The bolded is an interesting statement to think about xSteroids, and to be honest I'm not sure where I stand on that. So I looked at his career by Sox and post-Sox. With the Sox he had 80.8 career bWAR. That's more than Schilling's 80.5 bWAR and places him 26th all time for pitchers. That alone is HOF worthy (and in my opinion why he deserves a vote). After that, it really becomes a debate on how much his career was helped by steroids. Does he deserve the 58 bWAR he got? Probably not. But even if we take away half of that, 110 bWAR would be 6th all time. Clemens was great, it's just a shame his couldn't get away from his ego as he would have been a top-10 pitcher regardless if he stayed clean. I was just thinking the same looking at Bonds' career numbers. He was at 100 WAR at age 34 before he started juicing. He would've ended up as one of the 10 best players of all time without the steroids, but as it is the legacy is... messy. As I remember it he only started doing steroids because he was pissed off that these other inferior players were getting all the shine after going up a few hat sizes, and you can almost sympathize with that.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 5, 2021 14:35:01 GMT -5
My top 6 are easy Curt Schilling, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, David Ortiz, Manny Ramirez, and Alex Rodriguez. I hate this steriods crap when you have zero clue who did and didn't use them. I'd feel differently for players who weren't part of the steriods era, yet if you were you get a pass. If all Schillings negative crap that wasn't on the field can effect his votes this much, Ortiz should get the opposite for being a great role model.
My next four are so so and just a quick pick, that I could change with a bunch of research. Yet so many guys are rather close. Sammy Sosa, Scott Rolen, Todd Helton and Gary Sheffield. I'm giving Sosa a bump for what he did to bring back the game after the strike.
|
|
|