|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Jim Rice. People are either adamantly for or violently against. You’ve come down on the negative side. Are you against Jim Rice because he doesn’t fulfill the ideal of a “true” Hall of Famer or because he doesn’t belong with the people currently in the Hall?
That strikes me as a distinction without a difference. I can’t support Jim Rice’s Hall of Fame candidacy because I don’t believe he’s among the 20 best left fielders in major league history, or even among the five best corner outfielders who are today not in the Hall of Fame. Just to make the most obvious argument, Rice wasn’t nearly the ballplayer that Tim Raines was. That’s objectively true, and it’s frustrating to me that so many Hall of Fame voters believe that Jim Rice was a great player, but Tim Raines was not.
My reaction: I was particularly interested in this question because I think that Rice has a similar career trajectory to David Ortiz. A player needs to play at least 10 seasons to be eligible for the Hall, and since Ortiz got a late start as a starter, he has 12 total seasons in the bigs but only eight with over 400 at-bats. He finished in the top five in MVP voting five straight times from 2003-2007. If he can produce two more excellent seasons and then play his career out at an above-average level, it will be interesting to hear the discussion on whether Big Papi belongs in the Hall. Of course, Edgar Martinez will have a big say on the future of DH’s in the Hall.
Thanks to Nardone.
|
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread, May 2012 (1833 - 2:57am, May 26)Last: baudibNewsblog: Himrich’s Top Ten Target Field Foods (8 - 2:43am, May 26)Last: Long John McCaine Mutiny on the Bounty (scott)Newsblog: Boston.com: Curt Schilling’s 38 Studios lays off all staff (119 - 1:28am, May 26)Last: Swedish ChefNewsblog: HP: Baseball is leaving the human factor behind (56 - 1:15am, May 26)Last: The Keith Law Blog Blah Blah (battlekow)Newsblog: T.R. Sullivan: Of Frank Robinson, Milt Pappas and Jim Palmer (8 - 12:40am, May 26)Last: The Gurus DO NOT BourbonSamuraiNewsblog: Wilmoth: Nate McLouth Designated For Assignment (12 - 12:25am, May 26)Last: TriponHall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1973 Discussion (15 - 12:13am, May 26)Last: DanGNewsblog: Bud Selig -- No need for more MLB replay for now - ESPN (86 - 11:59pm, May 25)Last: cardsfanboyNewsblog: The Hall of Very Good: Former Cards Slugger Critical of "LaRussa's Regime" (4 - 11:26pm, May 25)Last: cardsfanboyNewsblog: CSN to host ‘Phillies at the Beach’ on Memorial Day (18 - 11:25pm, May 25)Last: Fielder's the first baseman, Felder is the fielderHall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1972 Ballot (28 - 11:25pm, May 25)Last: lieiamSox Therapy: A Winning Ballclub? (20 - 11:24pm, May 25)Last: DanNewsblog: Matschulat: Did I Miss The "Paul Konerko Is So Overrated OMG" Bandwagon? (27 - 11:16pm, May 25)Last: baudibNewsblog: TBO: Nerdy Rays head north (17 - 10:07pm, May 25)Last: PreservedFishNewsblog: Dodgers want to host NHL's Winter Classic (22 - 9:38pm, May 25)Last: Cris E
|
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Well, him and Frank Thomas, although Thomas is a better candidate than Ortiz.
It wouldn't surprise me if Ortiz had an easier time getting into the Hall than Thomas does, though...
I don't think Papi has a chance in hell at getting into the Hall, but maybe I'm wrong about that.
No. Frank Thomas was one of the top 5 hitters in the 90s. He won back to back MVPs and has 500 HR, .301 lifetime average, and a .419 OBP. He's in.
Violently?
Doesn't seem like it does Frank justice. He's the single best hitter of the 90's, isn't he? Probably ahead of even Bonds. I'll have to check PI.
If I had money, I would bet lots of it on Thomas making the Hall of Fame on his first or second ballot. He'll slide on through.
For one thing, he's a DH. Less than a fifth of his games at 1B, and that's not a total going up. Now maybe that should and maybe that shouldn't be a mark aganist him. But voters will certainly think so and there's certainly a case to be made that it should be held aganist him.
He needs 111 HRs to even reach 400, only 75 guys in history have ever hit that many in baseball history past age 33. 500 is basically out of reach. Only 13 guys hit enough homers past age 33 that would put Ortiz at 500, 3 of them were suspected juicers (Bonds, Raffy and McGwire) and another (Galarraga) got a major Coors boost.
I would guess he struggles to reach 2000 hits, he's already a below .290 hitter, that's not getting better.
He has a non-zero chance at being a Hall of Famer, but not more than that.
Damn, Barry wasn't all that bad before he started on roids.
As you just posted, Bonds was damn good. And, while I'm not a huge defense guy, I know that Bonds was far far superior to Thomas.
Griffey wasn't too bad either. Those three were definitely the top three hitters.
I don't see the Red Sox as being the kind of team that wants to pay a 35 year old DH $15-20 million a year.
Why not just take 50 percent of each team's revenues, throw them into one big pot, and split them 30 ways?
Hey, Rob endorses my idea from yesterday's thread! This is a pretty sensible idea.
Violently?
I have killed 3 would-be Rice BBWWA voters myself.
So Ortiz vs Thomas is pointless, Ortiz might have a shot if he can sustain his production to his late 30s, I'd think that for voters to vote him in he needs something well north of 400 HR. at 289 right now age 32 (hard to really remember that he's at that age), he has a reasonable chance but his body type obviously doesn't usually bode well in terms of decline, we shall see
Ortiz gets a huge lift over his stats because of the incredible number of "clutch" hits he had from 2004-2007. IF (and it's a big if) he has a 3 to 4 year run coming up where he plays at an all-star level (say 10-15% worse than 04-07) he'll make it in.
Half the writers (approximately) write for NL teams, so unless the NL adopts the DH, a player will have a hard time breaking 50%.
Not everybody, buster. But to hear some folks here, anyone who supports is as microcephalic as Zippy the Pinhead. OTOH, if you listen to Dan Shaughnessy, anyone who's against Rice had their wedding ceremony performed in Klingon assuming that their Farside Kid looking-self could find a woman similarly vision impaired to marry them. The truth is probably somewhere in between, but I'm sick of hearing bouth sides. This will pass in a few days. Serenity now.
PS - If you look up old Shaughnessy columns, he's changed his tune on Rice over the years. The Bresciani-led campaign must have bought him a couple of Jamesons and he woke up the next morning with a "Vote For Rice" button on his Members Only jacket.
Ha, I was going to post almost this exact same thing (even the same number).
I know it's fashionable to rag on DH's and there may be a few cases where being a DH hurt a guy in MVP voting (Ortiz in '05 comes to mind, although I'm inclined to think that the vote was pretty reasonable for that - A-Rod was a bit more valuable, in part because he played the field). But I can't think of a case where a player's DH-ing has really adversely affected his HOF chances. Molitor sailed in on the first ballot. Harold Baines is getting about the level of support he should (hardly any). Who else? Rice? From any objective reading of the stats, he's getting far more support than is warranted - whether he was a DH or a leftfielder. Edgar will be the test, I suppose, but he's pretty much a borderline case anyway - again, in part entirely fairly because he added hardly any fielding value to his exceptional hitting. I would think you'd have to wait until Edgar Martinez falls off the ballot or gets numbers comparable to Harold Baines before one could really say that HOF voters are unduly penalizing DH's.
Well, baseball is more important than life.
And what MCoA said.
I guess the word Firebrand was looking for was vehemently. I need to stay out of these threads.
Ortiz is a maybe. A we'll see.
Thomas is a sure thing.
I certainly hope so - he's my favorite player.
But a lot of sportswriters seem to focus on the negatives. He can't run, he can't field, he's got attitude issues, he cares too much about his personal stats (he walks too much), he's struggled at times in the postseason, he's never been an important part of a championship team, etc., etc...
That shouldn't be enough to not vote for him, but I guarantee that more than a few writers will think it is enough.
I suppose.
I still just hate you for being a Sox fan.
Ha, I was going to post almost this exact same thing (even the same number).
Comedy comes in threes.
Which is why Mordecai Brown is the funniest man in baseball history.
If we're talking strictly hitting, Edgar Martinez and Albert Belle are nearly equal to Griffey.
Just off the top of my head, I also checked Palmeiro and Juan Gonzalez, but they're definitely a tier below.
There's your problem right there -- you should have killed BBWAA voters.
Well, we are worse tha the Khmer Rouge.
At least those guys got an extensive canal system built.
Thomas's amazing early run was 1990-1997, and over that period his OPS+ was 182, Bonds 181. That's certainly well within the margin of error for whatever it is people think OPS+ measures. Thomas batted .330 in that stretch, while Bonds was "only" .305, so that's why Thomas was being called the best hitter since Ted Williams, and Bonds had content himself with some MVP awards. I think it's fair to call Thomas the best hitter in baseball at his peak, though of course Bonds was the superior baserunner and fielder (and perhaps a better clutch hitter as well). If you consider the entire decade of the '90s, Thomas falls back after that bizarre collapse in '98.
Hopefully, by 2020 we'll be better able to value defense in relation to offense. Right now, it seems like defense is barely factored in when evaluating the contributions of a player.
Which is why Mordecai Brown is the funniest man in baseball history.
Ha! Antonio Alfonseca is a good four times funnier than Brown.
Edgar will be the test case, as you said, but I think this sentiment is based not only on voting patterns for Hall of Fame, but also MVPs (didn't someone do a study on how DHs rate lower in MVP voting their raw stats would suggest?) and just sentiment expressed in columns.
Shouldn't they? In the same way that shortstops should rate higher in MVP voting than their raw stats would suggest.
Are there any MLB pitchers with nine fingers? Because I want to start calling somebody Frodo.
Well Ted Williams and Ty Cobb had plenty of negatives and they got in easily. The process if screwed up if Thomas doesn't get in on the first shot.
You're not the only one I hear say this so I don't direct this just at you but I hate this line of logic. Just as it is perfectly reasonable to use new methods of statistical interpretation to look at a player's career I think it is perfectly reasonable to use modern standards of integrity and sportsmanship when evaluating a player's worthiness.
What frustrates me is the standards of intergrity and sportsmanship are not applied evenly. I can't for the life of me understand why PED use is bad (McGwire) but being a druggie (Raines) or alcoholic (Eckersley) is acceptable. I personally wouldn't care much about that portion of the voting rules but I don't think it's unreasonable for voters to do so.
Well, his contributions were less. As a HOF voter I would try to assess both "value" and "ability." Ortiz has zero defensive value. Less than Manny Ramirez, less than Derek Jeter, less than whoever you think the worst defensive player in baseball is. Now, if he was capable of playing 1B (or anything else) but was forced to DH simply because his teams had too much talent, or whatever the circumstances were, I think he should get some credit for that. But based on the available evidence, that isn't the case either. From what I know, Ortiz is not a good 1B, would not be capable of playing a full season in the field, and believes the time he gets to spend in the clubhouse rather than on the field between AB helps his hitting. Ortiz gets less defensive credit, however you want to measure it, than any HOF candidate in history.
John Kruk to rule them all
and in the darkness bind them.
That's life. It sucks, but move on.
I wasn't even getting into huge personal things. Cobb, Williams, and Thomas were (or are) surly people, especially to the media. It probably cost Williams an MVP award. Still, it didn't stop the writers from voting him in.
Well, isn't (for arguments sake) Manny worth less because he's so bad in the field. Playing @ DH negates any negative value Ortiz would "contribute" via his glove. I'm not sure you can say, 'Manny is worth that much more than Ortiz even though he played LF like a ####### idiot for years costing his teams runs/wins while Ortiz spent every half inning thinking about the Gummy de Milo".
edit: grammar
Dang-from reading what was on here in the last month, Doc Ellis was a freakin' folk hero for pitching well while on LSD. I am just happy for the batters sake that he focused on the home-plate dancing in the middle of his vision that night. Drive drunk and you are scorned; pitch high and you are praised.
Really? There's a ####-ton of guys who get DUIs and have no problems with fans or the media.
I think that this is getting to the level of detail that RB was talking about (or at least that I interpreted RB as talking about). I assumed that it was universally agreed that a DH was less valuable than an average fielding 1B since the latter has some positive fielding value. The question then becomes, well, is it possible to actually have negative fielding value? Even if the answer is "Yes", I think it's a very rare case - arguably Manny in LF in Boston, maybe Frank Thomas as a 1B (so he's actually more valuable as a DH).
The argument that Ortiz has no more defensive value than Manny is basically - because Ortiz has to play DH, the Red Sox were forced to put Manny out there in LF, so in some sense, Manny's crappy defense is Papi's "fault". I don't know the particular details well enough to know how true that argument is from a factual basis (does Papi HAVE to play DH, would Manny even be willing to, is Manny's defense really as bad as some metrics say, is it time to stop having this argument since Manny's not there any more?).
To sort of weasel out without answering, I think that there's some "replacement level" defense that's so bad that playing below it can fairly be treated as negative value, so that any player who fields THAT badly is truly less valuable than a DH (assuming comparable hitting, of course).
Oh, c'mon, you can too understand the logic there. Rightly or wrongly, many people believe that PEDs enhanced McGwire's performance. His alleged PED use is held against him not so much because it's viewed as "immoral" in a general sense as because it is "cheating" (gaining an unfair advantage) and, to those who believe PEDs have a huge impact, it greatly skewed his performance so nobody knows how good he really was. The comparison you want is to spitballers.
One could make a case that Raines' cocaine use enhanced his performance I suppose (it is a stimulant) but I don't think anyone can make a case that alcoholism improves athletic performance. (Plus, is there actual evidence to suggest that Raines' drug use is a significant factor in his low vote total?)
Rightly or wrongly, if McGwire had beat his wife rather than used PEDs he'd be in the HoF right now.
But mainly I think the writers are pissed at McGwire because they all lavishly praised him in 98 and played Sgt. Schultz with regard to steroids for 10 years. Somebody's got to be the scapegoat and it's sure not going to be the media.
I don't know. Possibly. But if so, in Ortiz's specific case, he is even worse than the guy who was playing less than replacement-level defense. Maybe not value-wise, but certainly ability-wise.
I think this is a huge part of it. The SI Vault has proved to be high comedy in this regard.
To be fair to the argument, if McGwire had not used PEDs <u>and put up the exact same statistics</u> he'd be in the HoF now. The argument against McGwire is (in part) that the underlined part isn't true - without the PEDs, he still wouldn't be in the Hall of Fame because he wouldn't have hit anywhere near 583 home runs.
implies that he'd be a worse LF than Manny was. Which means that Manny had more defensive value to the Red Sox - he was capable of playing LF (albeit very poorly) and Ortiz was not (even at the level of Manny Ramirez).
Um. Yeah. That's the point.
But when I saw him in Minny he played ground balls like a cat batting string................
I really didn't like having "BeJolly" on my credit card statement, especially since I had to use the cc statement to get reimbursed for some work-related expenses.
Why? Edgar Martinez? Really? You had better be a Mariners fan...
Less than Adam Dunn? That'd be an epiphany.
Just out of curiosity, what actual evidence, other than his own word, do we have that Ellis really was on LSD when he pitched that no-hitter? On the face of it, this seems much more like a classic urban legend than any real event.
I mean pot, speed, or even cocaine, sure, but LSD? I've seen enough people tripping who couldn't even walk in a straight line to believe that Ellis story without further proof.
It depends on the dosage, and on how much time had elapsed after he took it. The effects of LSD vary greatly from person to person, depending on dosage, amount of recent usage, setting, and so on.
If it was a small dose, and he was coming down, or just taking off, I could see it as possible, but only because of the inherent "zen" nature of pitching. You are not aiming the ball, you are not throwing the ball, you are pitching, which means relying in large part on muscle memory built up over many years of repetitive practice.
Now, if he was peaking on a heavy dose of good windowpane -- yeah, I would have my doubts, too.
He's actually pretty good, I'd guess he'd be in the range of 5-10 runs below average. He's surprising agile - as anyone who's seen him run can tell you, he actually is oddly athletic - and can throw and catch reasonably.
What I think the issue is, rather, is that his body doesn't hold up over the course of a full season in the field - he would either get injured, or he wouldn't be able to maintain his offensive production.
Conclusion: Edgar for the HOF!
Also, I've never done LSD (or any drugs actually), but I've got plenty of friends who have. Most couldn't come close to pitching, but for a couple I could definitely see something like the zen of a no-hitter. Wouldn't be repeatable, but it could happen.
How do you compare their value, do you take away the runs Jeter gave away on defense, and do nothing to Ortiz, or do you penalize Ortiz at the same level as Jeter, which is silly because he almost certainly could never have away so many runs at 1B? Do you imagine what Jeter would've done at 1B?
*This is actually a terrible example, because the length of Jeter's career is going to push him into the Hall of Fame, along with his peak seasons, but it's 10:30 so give me a break
In a classic urban legend, we wouldn't have first-hand testimony from the person involved. He might be lying, but it's exceedingly rare to know the origin of an urban legend.
You're right about my misuse of "urban legend," but I think you got the drift in spite of it. In the interest of precision I probably should have written "classic bullshlt" instead.
---------------------
I mean pot, speed, or even cocaine, sure, but LSD? I've seen enough people tripping who couldn't even walk in a straight line to believe that Ellis story without further proof.
It depends on the dosage, and on how much time had elapsed after he took it. The effects of LSD vary greatly from person to person, depending on dosage, amount of recent usage, setting, and so on.
If it was a small dose, and he was coming down, or just taking off, I could see it as possible, but only because of the inherent "zen" nature of pitching. You are not aiming the ball, you are not throwing the ball, you are pitching, which means relying in large part on muscle memory built up over many years of repetitive practice.
Now, if he was peaking on a heavy dose of good windowpane -- yeah, I would have my doubts, too.
Which makes sense, and leads us to one of two possible conclusions: Either he wasn't really all that high, or he was lying. In neither case does it exactly jibe with the usual way that this story has been told over the years.
Well, when you are referring to "not really all that high", you have to use a different scale for LSD than for other drugs.
Even a quarter tab of window pane will get you higher than any amount of pot, but you can still be pretty functional. The more you concentrate on an activity, the less the buzz, over all.
I suppose Mazeroski could come forward and say that he and Dock were tripping before the game but I'm pretty sure there was no blood test nor was Ellis busted for possession after the game.
Sure Ellis might have been lying and if you don't believe him, you don't believe him (and you're just no fun!). But "awaiting further evidence" is just silly.
Frank Thomas's first eight seasons: 321 / 443 / 584 with an OPS+ of 174 in 1236 games.
Both won two MVPs.
Albert is a better defender and baserunner by a wide margin, but Frank had a superior OPS+ and 20 points of OBP.
In the 10 years since, Hurt has hit 277 / 390 / 521. In his post-prime years, he's still been a 900 OPS hitter, and only a smidge less valuable (higher OBP, lower SLG) than David Ortiz.
Big Papi shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as Frank Thomas.
OK, I believe him, I believe him! And Jim Rice was the most feared hitter of his generation! And Josh Gibson hit one, two, many home runs out of Yankee Stadium! And Ty Cobb could've hit a hundred home runs a year, but he was too nice a guy and he didn't want to show up the Babe!
And that time that Cool Papa Bell turned off the light switch and then stole second, third and home in his PJ's before the light went out! Now I don't want to take anything away from the most amazing player in history, but even with Timothy Leary as his coach, Dock Ellis himself might not have been able to top that.
Except that he has more big, memorable postseason hits than any player ever, maybe.
And he nailed Jeff Suppan at 3rd for "the" defensive play of the 2004 WS!
Seriously, who has more huge hits than Ortiz? Playoff-wise, I can count 6 quickly, OTTOMH.
If it was 6 or 7 hours after taking the LSD, than it's entirely liking that he was peaking or just peaked and was coming down during the game.
And this absolutely needs to be taken into consideration if he does come under HOF scrutiny. If he gets compared to other big bats of the past, a simple OPS+ comparison like so many do in here does not pass muster. He might have 15 points of OPS+ on Joe Bigbat, but Bigbat didn't have the opportunity to DH, or maybe he did but was able to play the field, so he played the field. You can argue that DH is a position and someone needs to fill it, but I'm pretty sure lacking a DH will cost a team a lot less than lacking a RF.
he has more big, memorable postseason hits than any player ever, maybe.
I can't stand the guy, but this does matter. It doesn't matter too much yet, because he doesn't have enough bulk to his career to really make a HOF case, but if he gets a little closer, the great postseason performance must be given weight (more than most Primates give it).
Although it's a different, far less powerful drug, I have a "friend" who played the best game of pick up football in his life on Shrooms. There's something about hallucinogenic drugs that can lead to a shedding of some of the mental inhibitors to achieving a peak physical performance during the buzz before or after the full effects are felt. This is of course, what my friend said. But I definitely believe it's possible to succeed athletically on hallucinogens as long as you're having a good trip.
I've done quite a bit of both LSD and shrooms. I wouldn't exactly describe shrooms as far less powerful. Shorter trip, but not less powerful. As to what you are describing, from my experience, it's rather easy when tripping to get into a "zone" where you are just totally locked in on whatever it is you are doing currently and everything else in the world just ceases to exist for you. Maintaining that state for an entire baseball game? Tougher, but certainly possible.
Really? I (the true identity of my "friend") never tried LSD. Good to know.
As to what you are describing, from my experience, it's rather easy when tripping to get into a "zone" where you are just totally locked in on whatever it is you are doing currently and everything else in the world just ceases to exist for you.
Isn't that just the greatest feeling in the world? First hour or so of every shroom trip (don't know how long for the others) should be dedicated to athletics for the best possible experience.
Does -5 to -10 at first base qualify as pretty good? But your second comment is supported by the numbers. From 2002-2007 Ortiz had 131 defensive games at first, and according to Fangraphs UZR, was only -1.3 runs.
Yeah, but how many of those home runs were CLUTCH!?
Just a little History Lite here in response to that.
In the Ortizian sense of the word, six of them. And the most Ortizian World Series he ever had was when he was 20 years old. Overall he only had about 4 or 5 World Series (out of 12) that were statistically notable, and in one of those (1958) most of his production was centered in one blowout loss. In all the others he was a complete non-factor. And in one of his best Series (1956), in game seven he set up Yogi Berra's two dingers off Newcombe by striking out both times. His overall WS OPS was .909, but a huge amount of that is accounted for by a handful of blowout games, and the final number exaggerates his overall World Series value by quite a bit.
Of course against all this, he was seriously injured in four of those Series (51-55-57-61) and so what I wrote above has to be weighed against that. He played with severe pain more than just about any player who ever put on a uniform, which is why during most of his career he was a God to his teammates far more than he was to the Yankee fan base. That fan base treated him like A-Rod for the first half of his career, and didn't begin fully to appreciate him until 1961.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main