Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, June 09, 2017

Sherman: How will next 5 years treat these borderline baseball legacies?

An anachronistic system with no transparency or accountability:

A six-member screening committee looks at every player who has been retired five years and who played at least 10 seasons. It takes two votes to be placed on the ballot, which the larger voting body receives each December.

The newbies in 2022 will be up against the last remnants of ballotgeddon: Clemens, Bonds, Schilling and Sosa are on for the last time; Mussina and Kent may also be lingering.  Here are 2016 retirees with 10+ WAA:

Player         WAR/pos WAA/pos OPS+    PA
Alex Rodriguez   117.7    75.9  140 12207
David Ortiz       55.3    20.5  141 10091
Mark Teixeira     51.9    24.4  126  8029
David Wright      50.0    29.6  133  6869
Jimmy Rollins     45.9    16.5   95 10240
Carl Crawford     38.9    14.2  105  7178
Player             WAR WAA
/p  SV    IP
Joe Nathan        26.4  14.2 377 923.1
Jonathan Papelbon 23.6  13.3 368 725.2 
DanG Posted: June 09, 2017 at 11:23 AM | 82 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: 2022 ballot, alex rodriguez, david ortiz, hall of fame

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.

   1. Captain Supporter Posted: June 09, 2017 at 05:46 PM (#5473003)
Let me be the first to say that Carl Crawford is not getting into the Hall of Fame. PS. David Wright has not retired.
   2. BDC Posted: June 09, 2017 at 07:51 PM (#5473089)
AROD not unless steroid values change; Ortiz an easy yes; Teixeira no chance; Wright and Crawford, what Supporter said; the relievers, who cares.

Jimmy Rollins is the interesting case, at least as far as the BBWAA goes. He has an MVP, a ring, mystique & aura, a long career - a unique player in many ways.

How'm I doing? Should I RTFA? :)
   3. DanG Posted: June 09, 2017 at 08:21 PM (#5473098)
How'm I doing? Should I RTFA?
Only if you want to know his fascinating assessments of Ryan Howard, Tim Lincecum and Prince Fielder.
   4. cardsfanboy Posted: June 09, 2017 at 08:26 PM (#5473103)
Arod would require a massive re-evaluation of roids, but I see him staying on the ballot for ten years.
Ortiz, will become a Jim Rice level of mistake, but instead of taking 15 years for it to happen, I imagine it will take three years and only delayed because of roid whispers.
Teix....I didn't know he was retired...if so, of course no.
Wright... yea he's not retired and a return to any level and he might become a real candidate...

the rest of course not, but Nathan is a fun story, quite probably one of the 10 best relievers in baseball history....definitely one of the top ten closers in baseball history.
   5. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: June 09, 2017 at 09:04 PM (#5473123)
David Wright has not retired.

Monty Python-Bring out your dead!
   6. BDC Posted: June 09, 2017 at 09:20 PM (#5473141)
Rollins' top B-Ref comps are Larkin, Trammell, Whitaker, and Alomar, which bodes very well for his HOF case. Not that it boded well for Trammell and Whitaker themselves, but you know what I mean: they're 65-70 WAR players, but because of inflated stats in his era, Rollins is only at 46 WAR.

Rollins is genuinely close to Nellie Fox. Few middle infielders have careers that long; as I noted, Rollins is pretty unusual. Fox had 49 WAR and is a HOF/HOM guy, though nobody's idea of inner-circle. Fox was also an MVP and a key player on a pennant winner, if not a World Champion:

Player          dWAR    PA OPSRbaser    R    H  HR RBI  BB  SB   BA  OBP  SLG    Pos
Nellie Fox      20.8 10351   93   18.0 1279 2663  35 790 719  76 .288 .348 .363 
*4/H53
Jimmy Rollins   13.7 10240   95   68.0 1421 2455 231 936 813 470 .264 .324 .418 
*6/HD4 


Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 6/9/2017.

   7. Man o' Schwar Posted: June 09, 2017 at 11:17 PM (#5473282)
It's surprising to hear this about Rollins. I never once thought "there's a future HOFer" while he was playing. Or even close to it. He was a good player who had one very good season.

But I wouldn't have thought him any different than, say, contemporary NL shortstops Rafael Furcal or Jose Reyes, with the exception of the 1 MVP.
   8. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: June 09, 2017 at 11:42 PM (#5473335)
Rollins is most certainly not a HOFer. Not even close. He'd be among the worst SSs in the HOF if elected, and there are some pretty undeserving HOF SSs.

Honestly, I'd be rather surprised if he survived the first ballot.
   9. MuttsIdolCochrane Posted: June 10, 2017 at 07:22 AM (#5473394)
Ortiz certainly should NOT be an easy yes. He absolutely cheated AND spent his career as a self-absorbed whiny little #####. NEVER saw fellow cheat Arod or ANYONE else constantly point to an official scorer because he was selfish and unhappy that his personal stats (not team success) were affected by the scorer's judgement. Egotistical #######. Roidtiz did that regularly. Showed no class there, also screamed at umps regularly about unfair treatment wahhhhhhhh. With Arod 10 times the all-around ballplayer as Ortiz (5 tools to 2) I don't get the unfair and different conclusions about their record and abilities. Talk about a no-brainer comparison.
   10. DanG Posted: June 10, 2017 at 08:24 AM (#5473399)
Nathan is a fun story, quite probably one of the 10 best relievers in baseball history....definitely one of the top ten closers in baseball history.
Yes. His attempts as a starter drag down his career numbers, but his prime is matched by few. Here are WAR leaders for pitchers with 200 saves in their 4th-13th seasons:

Player           WAR  SV ERAOPS+     IP From   To
Rich Gossage    37.6 228  155   66 1119.2 1975 1984
Mariano Rivera  31.4 395  211   44  706.2 1998 2007
Joe Nathan      25.1 340  195   46  671.1 2003 2013
Lee Smith       22.2 337  139   76  861.1 1983 1992
Billy Wagner    21.6 326  188   47  652.2 1998 2007
Tom Henke       20.3 272  161   60  675.1 1985 1994
Trevor Hoffman  19.2 380  159   59  623.0 1996 2005 
   11. DanG Posted: June 10, 2017 at 08:34 AM (#5473402)
I wouldn't have thought him any different than, say, contemporary NL shortstops Rafael Furcal or Jose Reyes
Most WAR shortstops debuting 1998+:

Player         WAR/po WAA/po Rfield    PA From   Age
Jimmy Rollins    45.9   16.5   31.0 10240 2000 21
-37
Troy Tulowitzki  44.1   27.5   96.0  5251 2006 21
-32
Rafael Furcal    39.0   18.1   67.0  7237 2000 22
-36
Hanley Ramirez   38.0   17.8 
-112.0  6530 2005 21-33
Jose Reyes       36.5   14.0  
-58.0  7644 2003 20-34
Jhonny Peralta   31.4    5.6  
-17.0  7319 2003 21-35
J
.JHardy       28.0    7.4   89.0  6253 2005 22-34 
   12. BDC Posted: June 10, 2017 at 09:03 AM (#5473404)
At B-Ref, Rollins is pictured wearing a Giants' cap. That's going to confuse people in a few years if they don't change it. It's confusing enough right now :)
   13. BDC Posted: June 10, 2017 at 09:20 AM (#5473407)
At this point in time, Tulowitzki is a splendid comp for Nomar Garciaparra. Obviously superior players, both right now at 44 WAR, neither one able to stay consistently in the lineup. Tulo could certainly get healthy and good again, more plausibly than David Wright, but the Toronto years haven't added much to his career.
   14. cardsfanboy Posted: June 10, 2017 at 10:06 AM (#5473408)
At B-Ref, Rollins is pictured wearing a Giants' cap. That's going to confuse people in a few years if they don't change it. It's confusing enough right now :)


I think when a player officially retires or goes so many seasons without playing, they default to the hat that they wore for most of their career. I remember Edmonds in a Padres hat at one point in time on bb-ref, he's now in the Cardinals cap.
   15. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: June 10, 2017 at 11:11 AM (#5473423)
Furcal and Reyes were both really good players at their peak, and Rollins was a little bit better. Rollins is a lead pipe cinch for HOVG status, Reyes and Furcal are probably just outside.

Also, man, David Wright being completely done after age 31 is going to keep him from being a Hall of Famer and that really, really sucks.
   16. alilisd Posted: June 10, 2017 at 11:36 AM (#5473428)
So Rodriguez is borderline, and Hoffman is having difficulty gaining traction after going 67% and 74% his first two years on the ballot.
   17. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 10, 2017 at 01:26 PM (#5473446)
Ortiz an easy yes;

Which would be a joke. To put him in with Edgar Martinez out is laughable.

I really hope the steroid haters blackball him.
   18. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: June 10, 2017 at 01:31 PM (#5473449)
I think Ortiz will get in pretty easily. Maybe a combination of steroids haters and DH haters keeps him below 75% for a year or three, but I can't see more than that absent something along the lines of a bunch of felony convictions.
   19. RJ in TO Posted: June 10, 2017 at 01:44 PM (#5473453)
Which would be a joke. To put him in with Edgar Martinez out is laughable.

I really hope the steroid haters blackball him.
Do you think Ortiz is deserving or not on his own merits? If he is, then how is it his fault the writers have been screwing up on Edgar? And, if he isn't, why would you want his to be rejected on steroids, rather than on his own (lack of) merits?
   20. blueshaker Posted: June 10, 2017 at 06:06 PM (#5473526)
Here is my biggest problem with Edgar Martinez as a HOFer: For whatever reason you want to point to, it was far easier to put up big numbers during the 'steroid' era. And I'm not talking about the raw numbers. I'm talking about the adjusted ones too:

1993 was the year offense took off. 2004 was the last great Bonds season and the first one post-testing. 12 years also seems like a nice timespan in that just about every player who's prime falls within it will actually have been a star at the same time. You won't get a list of 'contemporaries' who's peak years barely overlap. Here are the 1B/DH/LF/RF who are among the top 100 all-time for Adjusted Batting Runs, and who's prime fell within these years:
Peaked 1993-2004
Name BatWins Rank
thomas  69.7 17
manny   65   20
bagwell 58.8 24
thome   58.3 26
sheff   55.4 31
mcgwire 54.8 33
edgar   52.3 39
raffy   46.7 54
giambi  44.4 57
vlad    43.7 61
helton  42.4 66
walker  41.8 69
delgado 41   70
abreu   39   77
giles   37.9 82
olerud  36.5 89
belle   34.2 99 


Seventeen! And that's not even counting Sosa who only falls out of the top 100 due to negative years when he was rushed to the majors with the White Sox. Remember, this isn't players who simply played during this timespan, it's players who actually peaked within those years.

Here's the dozen years before:
Peaked 1981-1992
Name      BatWins Rank
henderson 53.3    35
murray    45.9    56
winfield  44      59
mcgriff   43.6    62
clark     39.7    75
clark     39      77
evans     36.2    93 

(Gwynnn isn't on either list since he's pretty much 50-50 between pre/post '93.)

Here's the dozen years after:
Peaked 2005-2016
Name     BatWins Rank
pujols   72.2    15
cabrera  61.8    22
papi     51.3    42
berkman  44      59
votto    41.9    68
holliday 34      100 


One way to interpret this is that there was a great clustering of talent, that by some fluke, a huge chunk of the greatest hitters of all time all showed up during the same timeframe, which just happens to coincide with a massive change in overall offense. And that the talent during this time was far greater than the era preceding it, and far greater than the talent in today's game. I don't buy it. I don't think giants walked the earth in the 20's and 30's, and I don't think giants walked the earth in the 90's either. (Though I suppose McGwire, Bonds, Sosa etc were about the size of WWE stars). It seem more likely that there was something about the conditions of the time, that allowed hitters to not just put up unprecendented raw numbers, but to dominate relative to their peers by an extent that just wasn't possible at other times. And if that's true, then there is really no choice but to discount some of those numbers, to discount the Batting Runs, the WAR, for the great hitters of the 90s/2000s.

So bringing it back to Edgar...I just don't think, within his era, that he stood out enough. He might have deserved the MVP in '95. But after that, he was never one of the handfull of best players in the game. In any given year, he simply didn't stand out enough from Thomas, McGwire, Palmeiro, Thome, Giambi, Vaughn, Olerud, Delgado...and thats just the AL.
   21. Tubbs is Bobby Grich when he flys off the handle Posted: June 10, 2017 at 06:56 PM (#5473547)
Good stuff #20 but by the same token because of PEDs a clean player could be overshadowed

From the 93-04 list you have several sluggers with differing degrees of PED taint: Manny, Sheff, McGwire, Raffy, Giambi and then throw in Sosa & Bonds. We have no proof that Edgar was 100% clean but if he was then to a degree he was playing at a disadvantage. There is no right or wrong answer to how to handle the PED era & as stated upthread it has been debated by Primates for years. Someone like me, I actually take the guys who I think we're clean such as Edgar, McGriff, & Walker and air on the side of inclusion and support them getting in the Hall
   22. The Duke Posted: June 10, 2017 at 09:56 PM (#5473599)
None of these guys are hall of famers. Hopefully there are a lot of writers who dislike Ortiz as much as me. Can't believe he will get a 'roid pass.
   23. Shock Posted: June 10, 2017 at 10:20 PM (#5473607)

Which would be a joke.


Well yes of course. The baseball hall of fame has been a total joke for a decade or longer. So no reason to not continue the laughs.
   24. DavidFoss Posted: June 10, 2017 at 10:45 PM (#5473613)
I think when a player officially retires or goes so many seasons without playing, they default to the hat that they wore for most of their career. I remember Edmonds in a Padres hat at one point in time on bb-ref, he's now in the Cardinals cap.

Cool. I take it that's for recent players where the source of the mugshots is more standard? There are some oddities for oldtimers (e.g. Zoilo as a Dodger) but I'm guessing older mugshots are harder to find and I'm just happy to have anything.
   25. cardsfanboy Posted: June 11, 2017 at 12:29 AM (#5473637)
None of these guys are hall of famers. Hopefully there are a lot of writers who dislike Ortiz as much as me. Can't believe he will get a 'roid pass.


I'm not an Ortiz supporter, but he absolutely deserves consideration for multiple years.. He wouldn't get my vote of course, but he's close enough that I can see enough people supporting him. And as RJ in 19 points out, you shouldn't penalize him because of a failure of the electorate to elect Edgar or others...

I have both Ortiz and Edgar on the outside looking in, and Larry Walker in, but I get that the voters aren't there. Ortiz is a mistake, but he's not a Jim Rice or Jack Morris potential level of mistake, he's an Andre Dawson or Kirby Puckett level of mistake.
   26. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: June 11, 2017 at 12:49 AM (#5473645)
Ortiz is a mistake, but he's not a Jim Rice or Jack Morris potential level of mistake,


Tell that to the guy who made the fourth post in the thread.
   27. TVerik, who wonders what the hell is "Ansky" Posted: June 11, 2017 at 05:32 AM (#5473657)
If the shift never goes into vogue, I think Teixeira gets in.
   28. PreservedFish Posted: June 11, 2017 at 07:04 AM (#5473661)
Ortiz's hype may be hype, but at least it's real hype. Jack Morris and Jim Rice had cases that relied on fake hype - memories of reputations that did not really exist at the time or at least had been badly inflated.
   29. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 11, 2017 at 08:04 AM (#5473666)
Ortiz's hype may be hype, but at least it's real hype. Jack Morris and Jim Rice had cases that relied on fake hype - memories of reputations that did not really exist at the time or at least had been badly inflated.

Unless you're the sort of steroids hardliner who considers any sort of accusation or evidence to be conclusive of guilt, I've never understood the hatred for Ortiz out of some quarters around here, which seems little more than a Get Off My Lawn attitude towards players who exhibit any kind of non-Ernie Banks style emotion on the ballfield.** But then you also see hatred for Jeter and occasionally even Ripken, so I tend to see the problem lying with the haters rather than the hated.

But on his merits, Ortiz isn't a Hall of Famer? Christ, is this for real? 541 home runs, a career 140 OPS+,*** and postseason clutch heroics that are virtually unequaled in history. He's not an inner circle choice, but in the overall picture he's the very embodiment of a Hall of Famer: Fine numbers; long career; repeated clutch performances; and an outsized personality and style that was more reminiscent of The Babe than any other player within living memory. Only the most laundrycentric fan can fail to acknowledge this.

And Edgar belongs in there, too. The idea of penalizing one player because of the writers' shortsightedness on another player is just perverse.

** See O'Neill, Paul, or Bautista, Jose

*** Comparable numbers for Jim Rice: 382 home runs and a career OPS+ of 128. And their postseason numbers are light years apart.
   30. BDC Posted: June 11, 2017 at 09:18 AM (#5473669)
The most similar batting careers to Ortiz's are basic Hall of Famers:

Player              dWAR    PA OPSRbaser  HR  RBI   BA  OBP  SLG      Pos
Eddie Mathews        5.5 10100  143    1.0 512 1453 .271 .376 .509   
*53/H7
Chipper Jones       
-1.6 10614  141    4.0 468 1623 .303 .401 .529 *57/H6D9
Sam Crawford       
-18.1 10594  144   -2.0  97 1523 .309 .362 .452  *9837/H
Harmon Killebrew   
-19.0  9833  143  -23.0 573 1584 .256 .376 .509 357DH/49
David Ortiz        
-21.4 10091  141  -39.0 541 1768 .286 .380 .552     *D3H 


Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 6/11/2017.

In WAR terms, Ortiz is at 55 for his career – which isn't low at all. It's midway between Tony Perez and Willie Stargell, who share narrative qualities with Ortiz, and it's about even with Joe Medwick and Max Carey. But also with Vada Pinson and Chet Lemon and Robin Ventura, so it's a swath of the career WAR leaderboard where a lot of other factors than sheer career value come into play.

Looks like the reasons not to vote for Ortiz include:

1) the DH "penalty" is too low, and he's really a lot worse than Killebrew (60 WAR) or Stargell (58) or even Perez (54)
2) PED rumors
3) whining about the strike zone
4) postseason shouldn't even enter the foyer of your mind when thinking about the HOF
5) don't like him

I'm closer to Andy's position, and I think the BBWAA will be, too.
   31. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 11, 2017 at 09:32 AM (#5473672)
4) postseason shouldn't even enter the foyer of your mind when thinking about the HOF

I think the line on that is something like "the postseason is nothing but exhibition games", which may be the most brain dead and clueless cliche I've ever seen posted around here, with a close second being that "it's not fair to players who never got to play much in the postseason".
   32. DanG Posted: June 11, 2017 at 10:00 AM (#5473679)
it's a swath of the career WAR leaderboard where a lot of other factors than sheer career value come into play

56.2 221. Will Clark (15)
56.0 222. Johnny Damon (18)
56.0 222. George Uhle (17)
56.0 222. Robin Ventura (16)
55.8 225. Bill Dickey+ (17)
55.7 226. Luis Aparicio+ (18)
55.6 227. Joe Medwick+ (17)
55.6 227. Jim Whitney (10)
55.6 227. Jim Wynn (15)
55.5 230. Chet Lemon (16)
55.4 231. David Ortiz (20)
55.4 231. Eppa Rixey+ (21)
55.2 233. Jeff Kent (17)
55.1 234. Bobby Mathews (15)
55.1 234. Enos Slaughter+ (19)
54.9 236. Kevin Appier (16)
54.7 237. Billy Herman+ (15)
   33. cardsfanboy Posted: June 11, 2017 at 11:27 AM (#5473690)
4) postseason shouldn't even enter the foyer of your mind when thinking about the HOF


The problem is that the pro-Ortiz supporters want to talk about his good series, and ignore the 2002 post season, 2003 ALDS, 2008 post season, 2009 post season, 2016 post season. He had 18 post seasons, 8 of which he put up sub .700 ops. 7 over 1.000. He's been good as often as he has been bad, and has a post season in line with his career numbers, so it's basically half a season of pa at his normal rate.
   34. cardsfanboy Posted: June 11, 2017 at 11:28 AM (#5473691)
Tell that to the guy who made the fourth post in the thread.


He overstated the level of mistake...
   35. BDC Posted: June 11, 2017 at 11:50 AM (#5473700)
He's been good as often as he has been bad, and has a post season in line with his career numbers, so it's basically half a season of pa at his normal rate

That's true. I wouldn't argue that his postseason showing means he's a better player than the regular season would indicate. (Or just a little better: it's his normal rate, but against superior pitching, and it's weighted toward the World Series.)

It's just that those good moments were exceptionally important, and there were a lot of them – not that his clutch hitting was a superpower, but that it was a thing that happened at historic moments, and resulted in championships. I do think the HOF should value those moments.
   36. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 11, 2017 at 12:02 PM (#5473705)
The problem is that the pro-Ortiz supporters want to talk about his good series, and ignore the 2002 post season, 2003 ALDS, 2008 post season, 2009 post season, 2016 post season. He had 18 post seasons, 8 of which he put up sub .700 ops. 7 over 1.000. He's been good as often as he has been bad, and has a post season in line with his career numbers, so it's basically half a season of pa at his normal rate.

Let me put it this way: How many players have put up a .947 OPS over 18 postseason series and 369 PAs? In terms of players with more than a handful of postseason series, only Ruth and Gehrig and George Brett performed better than Ortiz----and none of them had even half as many postseason PAs as Big Papi.
   37. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: June 11, 2017 at 12:26 PM (#5473712)
I won't be a voter yet in Ortiz's first year of eligibility (unless a proposal going around is adopted), but if he's still on the ballot, I'll vote for him, assuming there's not another 10-person slate that I prefer. He's the all-time leader in postseason WPA for hitters and I get 7th all-time when I adjust for the length of the postseasons. He's a borderline candidate without the postseason, but considering a playoff game three times as important as a regular season game -- I think that's even conservative given that getting the postseason is a big motivator of regular season play -- he gets into that 65-70 WAR range in bWAR, 60-65 by FanGraphsand I think that's a Hall of Famer.

And there's an argument that the DH penalty is generally *too* much. There's no defensive contribution, but it's essentially required for an AL team and players hit worse when used as a DH than when playing the field, even when you weed out injuries as best you can.
   38. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: June 11, 2017 at 12:58 PM (#5473718)
FTR, I honestly don't really have a strong position about Ortiz in terms of the HOF one way or another. Same with Martinez. I probably wouldn't vote for either, but neither is someone that I'm inclined to spend much effort arguing against (compared to someone like Rollins, who would be an absolutely terrible addition to the HOF).

In terms of Ortiz's postseason, you have to consider both the mean and the variance. The fact that he was absolutely terrible in several series (including elimination ones) is relevant, even if overall he was above-average.

In terms of whether Ortiz is overpenalized for being a DH, Ortiz accumulated a -15 Rfield in only 2162 career innings at 1B. Had he played the field for most of his career, I don't think that there's any doubt that he would have been a historically poor fielding 1B and would have accumulated negative dWAR that would have exceed the positional adjustment between 1B and DH. So you have to make some pretty strong assumptions about Ortiz being a better hitter as a 1B than as a DH. FWIW, his career splits as a DH were actually a bit better than as a 1B. There's really only one year (2003, maybe 2004) were he had enough PA at both 1B and DH to make any sort of meaningful comparison and he was actually much more productive as a DH that year (same is true of 2004). There may be some players who are overpenalized by being a DH, but I'm pretty sure that Ortiz is not among them.
   39. cardsfanboy Posted: June 11, 2017 at 01:05 PM (#5473723)
Let me put it this way: How many players have put up a .947 OPS over 18 postseason series and 369 PAs? In terms of players with more than a handful of postseason series, only Ruth and Gehrig and George Brett performed better than Ortiz----and none of them had even half as many postseason PAs as Big Papi.


And Carlos Beltran who has a 1.078 career post season ops, sure just 235 pa, but more than Brett, Ruth or Gehrig.
Manny Ramirez has 493 post season pa, and a .937 ops.
Chippper Jones only has .864 ops over 417 pa, but also played in the field, by war, I'm sure his post season war is better.
Albert Pujols has a 1.030 ops over 334 pa in the post season.
   40. Booey Posted: June 11, 2017 at 01:06 PM (#5473724)
I love WAR and WAA as much as the next guy, but even though everyone says those stats are just the starting point of the argument and not the end-all-be-all...there are plenty of posters who actually seem to believe the latter. People who don't think Ortiz is a HOFer...or Vlad, Ichiro, Rivera, or a non PED version of McGwire and Sosa...did you even watch baseball in the 90's and 2000's? Those guys were some of the defining stars of their era. But...but...but...their WAR! It's ONLY borderline! Not even below the cutoff, mind you, but within the reasonable range, and people still think the Hall is better off without them? To me that seems silly, and ignorant of the HOF's history and previously established standards.
   41. cardsfanboy Posted: June 11, 2017 at 01:25 PM (#5473729)
I love WAR and WAA as much as the next guy, but even though everyone says those stats are just the starting point of the argument and not the end-all-be-all...there are plenty of posters who actually seem to believe the latter. People who don't think Ortiz is a HOFer...or Vlad, Ichiro, Rivera, or a non PED version of McGwire and Sosa...did you even watch baseball in the 90's and 2000's? Those guys were some of the defining stars of their era. But...but...but...their WAR! It's ONLY borderline! Not even below the cutoff, mind you, but within the reasonable range, and people still think the Hall is better off without them? To me that seems silly, and ignorant of the HOF's history and previously established standards.


Ortiz is borderline, and is worthy of discussion, and it's a fun(at least to me) discussion. Years ago I said that Ortiz was not even borderline and would have to go three seasons or so at his career level to reach borderline status, and he absolutely did that. He has earned his way into the discussion for the hof.
   42. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: June 11, 2017 at 02:25 PM (#5473755)
Ortiz's HOF is difficult because you simultaneously have a player tainted by PED allegations and a guy who basically spent his entire career as a DH. To a lesser degree, you have a high mean but high variance performance in the postseason and a guy who didn't become an everyday player until his mid/late 20s (it's very hard to accumulate sufficient career value when you don't become a full-time player until your peak years). I don't think that there's consensus on any of those issues, which is why I expect that he'll spend 10 years with a significant vote share, but one that is below 75%.

Setting aside those issues, he's within the realm of being objectively qualified for the HOF for a 1B/DH, but clearly below average for that position. If inducted, he would be nowhere near the least deserving. At the same time, if not inducted, he would not be among the most deserving among those excluded. If you completely discount the PED issue, then he's a borderline candidate who reasonable people can disagree about.

In terms of the Killebrew test (i.e., most 1B/DH who are clearly better than Killebrew are HOFers, most who are worse are not), I think that he scores as indeterminate. That is, on whole, I'm not sure that he is clearly better or clearly worse than Killebrew. I interpret that result as further evidence that he's borderline, and as I said previously, I don't have a strong opinion on him one way or another. He's a guy that some people will overestimate (i.e., clearly a HOFer) while some will underestimate (i.e., clearly not a HOFer). And I suspect that we'll debating Ortiz's HOF case for a decade and probably beyond.
   43. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 11, 2017 at 02:37 PM (#5473760)
Let me put it this way: How many players have put up a .947 OPS over 18 postseason series and 369 PAs? In terms of players with more than a handful of postseason series, only Ruth and Gehrig and George Brett performed better than Ortiz----and none of them had even half as many postseason PAs as Big Papi.

And Carlos Beltran who has a 1.078 career post season ops, sure just 235 pa, but more than Brett, Ruth or Gehrig.
Manny Ramirez has 493 post season pa, and a .937 ops.
Chipper Jones only has .864 ops over 417 pa, but also played in the field, by war, I'm sure his post season war is better.
Albert Pujols has a 1.030 ops over 334 pa in the post season.


Thanks for doing the research, but then none of those four players would exactly be terrible HoF selections themselves, unless you think that Papi and Manny are out because of steroids and defense.

----------------------------------------------------------------

I love WAR and WAA as much as the next guy, but even though everyone says those stats are just the starting point of the argument and not the end-all-be-all...there are plenty of posters who actually seem to believe the latter. People who don't think Ortiz is a HOFer...or Vlad, Ichiro, Rivera, or a non PED version of McGwire and Sosa...did you even watch baseball in the 90's and 2000's? Those guys were some of the defining stars of their era. But...but...but...their WAR! It's ONLY borderline! Not even below the cutoff, mind you, but within the reasonable range, and people still think the Hall is better off without them? To me that seems silly, and ignorant of the HOF's history and previously established standards.

My only complaint about these HoF discussions is the number of people who seem to insist on conflating the Hall of Fame with the Hall of Merit. Of course there's going to be overlap in most cases, but the Hall of Fame isn't just a Hall of Statistical Achievement.
   44. Booey Posted: June 11, 2017 at 02:37 PM (#5473761)
CFB - I agree with all of that, except that for me his last couple seasons moved him into the "yes" category rather than just the borderline. I wouldn't have given him much consideration if he'd retired after 2014; at that point his career numbers (both counting and value stats) were nearly identical to Carlos Delgado. 2015 moved him to the borderline for me, putting him basically on par with Fred McGriff. 2016 put him clearly ahead of McGriff and into my PHOF without a doubt. He's nowhere near inner circle, of course, but I think a HOF without Papi would be somewhat diminished.
   45. cardsfanboy Posted: June 11, 2017 at 03:05 PM (#5473772)
CFB - I agree with all of that, except that for me his last couple seasons moved him into the "yes" category rather than just the borderline. I wouldn't have given him much consideration if he'd retired after 2014; at that point his career numbers (both counting and value stats) were nearly identical to Carlos Delgado. 2015 moved him to the borderline for me, putting him basically on par with Fred McGriff. 2016 put him clearly ahead of McGriff and into my PHOF without a doubt. He's nowhere near inner circle, of course, but I think a HOF without Papi would be somewhat diminished.


To be honest there are some days where I do think he would get a yes even from me, so I'm not really against Ortiz going in, at least not the way I used to be, 10,000 pa is a lot of PA. At the same time I do think he's a guy who is worth the discussion.


My only complaint about these HoF discussions is the number of people who seem to insist on conflating the Hall of Fame with the Hall of Merit. Of course there's going to be overlap in most cases, but the Hall of Fame isn't just a Hall of Statistical Achievement.



Sorry, I really don't see the difference... hof and hom are both to honor the best ball players. I can't help it if from time to time, the writers have been idiots, it's what you expect for a profession that is generally composed of people who think they are more important than the subject matter they cover, because they once got a swirly in the bathroom by a jock.

The best players are hof worthy, the best players are hom worthy, the only difference is that the hom decided to use a more analytical approach instead of having a veteran's committee which entire goal was to put everyone who ever played on the same team as the members of the committee in. Existing fame is not a part of the hall of fame. At no point in the voting instructions does it mention previous fame.
   46. PreservedFish Posted: June 11, 2017 at 03:43 PM (#5473787)
nevermind
   47. Ziggy: The Platonic Form of Russell Branyan Posted: June 11, 2017 at 04:00 PM (#5473794)
even though everyone says those stats are just the starting point of the argument and not the end-all-be-all...there are plenty of posters who actually seem to believe the latter


WAR is the starting point not the end point for two reasons. First, the WAR equations still need to be refined, and second, even if it was perfect it wouldn't be a straight measure of a player's value.

The first point is obvious, so I'll skip it. Suffice it to say that we still need to work on fielding stats and some other things.

Regarding the second: WAR ignores how a player's production is distributed, even though (within reason) there is more value to be had by concentrating production than by having it widely distributed.

It's a starting point not an end point because we don't have a perfect way to measure a player's value, but because considerations like how popular a player was (or how feared he was, or etc.) should enter into the discussion.
   48. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 11, 2017 at 04:55 PM (#5473842)
My only complaint about these HoF discussions is the number of people who seem to insist on conflating the Hall of Fame with the Hall of Merit. Of course there's going to be overlap in most cases, but the Hall of Fame isn't just a Hall of Statistical Achievement.

Sorry, I really don't see the difference... hof and hom are both to honor the best ball players. I can't help it if from time to time, the writers have been idiots, it's what you expect for a profession that is generally composed of people who think they are more important than the subject matter they cover, because they once got a swirly in the bathroom by a jock.


That's a silly overgeneralization and you know it. It's about on the same level of accuracy as broadbrush statements about Cardinals fans or Yankees fans.

The best players are hof worthy, the best players are hom worthy, the only difference is that the hom decided to use a more analytical approach instead of having a veteran's committee which entire goal was to put everyone who ever played on the same team as the members of the committee in. Existing fame is not a part of the hall of fame. At no point in the voting instructions does it mention previous fame.

This just illustrates the problem I have with the conflation. It's like reducing Donald Trump's impeachmentworthiness to a purely legal question, rather than weighing the totality of his actions.

AFAICT the main complaint about the HoF is that it elects too many Dizzy Deans and Jim Rices, and not enough Lou Whitakers and Alan Trammells. My answer to that is that the latter omission is a far worse violation of HoF standards than the former commission. In borderline cases, non-statistical factors are a perfectly legitimate addition to a player's Hall of Fame resume, in a way that they're NOT a legitimate addition to his resume for the Hall of Merit. And in borderline cases, character or "color"** is most definitely a factor that's worthy of consideration, either for good or for bad, as long as those judgements are based on fact and not on fiction or innuendo.

** No, not skin color
   49. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: June 11, 2017 at 05:18 PM (#5473862)
AFAICT the main complaint about the HoF is that it elects too many Dizzy Deans and Jim Rices, and not enough Lou Whitakers and Alan Trammells. My answer to that is that the latter omission is a far worse violation of HoF standards than the former commission. In borderline cases, non-statistical factors are a perfectly legitimate addition to a player's Hall of Fame resume, in a way that they're NOT a legitimate addition to his resume for the Hall of Merit. And in borderline cases, character or "color"** is most definitely a factor that's worthy of consideration, either for good or for bad, as long as those judgements are based on fact and not on fiction or innuendo.

I agree with you. To add a little more specificity, I think that there are two types of "HOF errors":

- Type I: admitting a completely unqualified player into the HOF (e.g., Jim Rice)
- Type II: failing to admit a well-qualified player into the HOF (e.g., Alan Trammell)

Also, I think that we need to think in terms of there being a domain of players within which they may be qualified rather than some absolute threshold. I would propose that "well-qualified" by a player who is above average for his position (this doesn't need to strictly be based in WAR-based analysis, although that's often a useful starting point).

In general, the BBWAA don't commit too many Type I errors (Rice is a rare exception), but they do commit a lot of Type II errors. In theory, the Veterans Committee exists to remedy Type II errors, but historically they've committed Type I errors at an unacceptable rate. So we have a situation with the HOF where there simultaneously a lot of Type I and Type II errors and there simply isn't a mechanism for correcting Type I errors. Now I don't know that there should be a committee to strip inductees of their HOF plaques, but it wouldn't necessarily be the most egregious thing that the HOF has done with respect to HOF selection.

By its construction, the HOM was designed to minimize Type II errors but was susceptible to Type I errors. In general, I think that they've done a good job at balancing the two, but I think that it's probably the case that there are more undeserving players in the HOM who happened to get elected on weak ballots than there are deserving players who have been overlooked. Again, I don't know that having some sort of process to strict the weakest HOMers of their inclusion is the appropriate mechanism for addressing this issue, but it was an unavoidable weakness to their ballot system.
   50. BDC Posted: June 11, 2017 at 05:50 PM (#5473880)
it's probably the case that there are more undeserving players in the HOM who happened to get elected on weak ballots than there are deserving players who have been overlooked

I am impressed, though, that there seem to me hardly any players outside the HOM better than those inside – so at the size of Hall they've chosen, they've done an amazing job.
   51. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 11, 2017 at 05:59 PM (#5473882)
I am impressed, though, that there seem to me hardly any players outside the HOM better than those inside – so at the size of Hall they've chosen, they've done an amazing job.

I've always been impressed with the HoM's ability to induct players who are the most qualified statistically. Where I differ from some of the hardcore types is that I don't see statistics as the only proper measure of a Hall of Famer.

And for Christ's sake, if statistics were the only measure of Hall of Fame worthiness, their selections would generate about as much buzz as the announcement of a high school's GPA rankings, since anyone who knew the formula would know the selections in advance.
   52. PreservedFish Posted: June 11, 2017 at 05:59 PM (#5473883)
The Hall of Merit should have an interactive slider thing where you can reduce and expand the size of the Hall and it shows you which players you gain and lose. Easy way to see how large you want your Hall to be.
   53. Everybody Loves Tyrus Raymond Posted: June 12, 2017 at 01:48 AM (#5474015)
The Hall of Fame was created for players like David Ortiz. If you have to "discuss" his candidacy, your ratio of talking about the Hall of Fame to actually understanding the Hall of Fame is ######. He's sailing in and deservedly so.
   54. Batman Posted: June 12, 2017 at 08:35 AM (#5474041)
The problem is that the pro-Ortiz supporters want to talk about his good series, and ignore the 2002 post season, 2003 ALDS, 2008 post season, 2009 post season, 2016 post season. He had 18 post seasons, 8 of which he put up sub .700 ops. 7 over 1.000. He's been good as often as he has been bad, and has a post season in line with his career numbers, so it's basically half a season of pa at his normal rate.
I think that's just how the postseason works. Reggie Jackson played in one fewer postseason series and had the same 8 sub-.700's and 7 1.000-pluses. There wasn't any doubt that Reggie was a Hall of Famer, but being Mr. October got him a candy bar.

Except for Babe Ruth. He played in seven World Series after he became a full-time hitter, and only had one bad one. And he also set pitching records in his first two series.
   55. TomH Posted: June 12, 2017 at 08:57 AM (#5474050)
Ortiz: forgetting the PEDs issue for now:

His HOF candidacy almost completely depends on his postseason. We all agree he was a very very good regular season bat, but mostly a DH, and as such is in the HOVG, not the HOF.

But if you assess his post-seasons: well, he is easily one of the top 8 post-season players ever, and you can easily make a solid argument he has had The Most post-season success ever. Did he have some poor post-seasons? Sure, but so did Jeter, Reggie!, and everyone else who played more than Koufax. By batting WPA, who has a higher total than Ortiz? Answer: NO ONE. Get that? NO ONE. Who has more or even as many walk-off RBIs than Ortiz? Hint: SAME ANSWER AS ABOVE. Who has more overall R+RBI given the postseason outs he has made? Maybe Beltran or Pujols. And yes, the Wild Card era give far most chances than before (surely Ruth and Gehrig have better rate stats), but Papi had less than on-half the opportunities than many modern Yankees, and less opps than Reggie "I stunk the ALCSs".

Does that make him a HoFer? I dunno. I'd put him in if you took out Rice!

edit: Ruth's post-season WPA as a pitcher AND hitter is less than Papi's. Partly because the Yankees crushed teams in the WS so badly, there were very fewer opportunities for drama on a single at bat. Except maybe when Ruth tried to steal 2nd.. :)
   56. Rennie's Tenet Posted: June 12, 2017 at 09:09 AM (#5474053)
Except for Babe Ruth. He played in seven World Series after he became a full-time hitter, and only had one bad one.


One of the "That can't be right, can it?"s about Ruth is that he hit three homers in a Series game twice, and also only twice in his whole career of regular season games.
   57. Ithaca2323 Posted: June 12, 2017 at 10:15 AM (#5474091)

Sorry, I really don't see the difference... hof and hom are both to honor the best ball players. I can't help it if from time to time, the writers have been idiots, it's what you expect for a profession that is generally composed of people who think they are more important than the subject matter they cover, because they once got a swirly in the bathroom by a jock.


Yes, but it's obvious voters are influenced by all sorts of other factors, and it's been this way forever, even if the players in question don't get elected (Larsen, Morris, etc.)

The problem is that the pro-Ortiz supporters want to talk about his good series, and ignore the 2002 post season, 2003 ALDS, 2008 post season, 2009 post season, 2016 post season. He had 18 post seasons, 8 of which he put up sub .700 ops. 7 over 1.000. He's been good as often as he has been bad, and has a post season in line with his career numbers, so it's basically half a season of pa at his normal rate.


Yes, and that's because the wins matter more than the losses when we count these things up.
   58. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 12, 2017 at 10:23 AM (#5474097)
The Hall of Fame was created for players like David Ortiz. If you have to "discuss" his candidacy, your ratio of talking about the Hall of Fame to actually understanding the Hall of Fame is ######.

Thank you.

   59. Ithaca2323 Posted: June 12, 2017 at 10:27 AM (#5474101)
The Hall of Fame was created for players like David Ortiz. If you have to "discuss" his candidacy, your ratio of talking about the Hall of Fame to actually understanding the Hall of Fame is ######.


Yeah, this is sort of where I fall. IMO, The Hall of Fame doesn't have to just be a place where its about the numbers. Narrative matters too.
   60. base ball chick Posted: June 12, 2017 at 12:26 PM (#5474199)
all yall know where i stand on the DH
it is EVULLLLL

that said, david ortiz is the very first DH who i think should be elected to the hall of FAME even if he is nothing but a pinch hitter who didn't run or field worth a bucket of warm spit.

he is the definition of the word
FAME
. he lit up the postseasons - and of course he had some lousy series. even lance berkman had a lousy series (you notice he never gets mentioned when it comes to talk about shining in the postseason but then again he was an astro and folks don't know what that even IS)

he put up great regular season hitting stats, too

people only use the supposed positive test in 2003 for who knows what as ammunition to defend their dislike of the player. good lord. the guy was tested out the wazoo since 2004 and never popped positive for anything and had no connection whatsoever to any drug dealer or drug clinic. he is most clearly not some steroid creation

he was one of the 10 best hitters in the DH league every year from 2004 to retirement. cmon. he is the freaking DEFINITION of hall of FAMEr
   61. Jumpy_McFrog Posted: June 12, 2017 at 01:27 PM (#5474244)
I really like the lists in #20, but I disagree with the interpretation.

During 1993-2004 a relatively large portion of the best players' value came from their bats. That makes sense for an era where swinging for the fences is the predominant strategy -- the relative value of slugging skill is high compared to defensive skill.

Compare the ranks in #20 for batting wins with their career rank for bWAR among position players:

name, batting wins rank, bWAR rank
-------------------------------------------
thomas 17, 52
manny 20, 72
bagwell 24, 38
thome 26, 53
sheff 31, 117
mcgwire 33, 109
edgar 39, 77
raffy 54, 59
giambi 57, 187
vlad 61, 124
helton 66, 114
walker 69, 56
delgado 70, 257
abreu 77, 121
giles 82, 182
olerud 89, 131
belle 99, 324

Everyone except Larry Walker fares worse when considering both offense and defense. In most cases, considerably worse.

So at least some of the effect is due to the best players of the 1993-2004 era having most of their eggs in one basket, so to speak.

While it's tempting to think one can just discount offensive contributions from that era to try to make things fair, I don't think it's that simple. You'll be penalizing players for specializing in the part of the game that is most valuable at that time.
   62. Booey Posted: June 12, 2017 at 01:57 PM (#5474258)
I really like the lists in #20, but I disagree with the interpretation.

During 1993-2004 a relatively large portion of the best players' value came from their bats.


Yeah, that's what I've always thought too. Yes, there were more seemingly HOF worthy SLUGGERS during sillyball than from previous eras , but they're coming at the expense of building HOF resumes through other methods. Ichiro could be the last HOFer for quite a while to build his offensive case almost exclusively via contact (i.e. batting average) rather than power. In the 70's and 80's you had Rose, Carew, Boggs, and Gwynn. Plus guys who built their case predominantly with speed (Rickey, Raines). Plus pure defensive specialists like Ozzie (obviously gold gloves was a big part of the HOF case for guys like Alomar and Pudge as well, but they could hit too). When you actually sit down and list everyone from each era that looks like they should be a HOFer, the 90's and 2000's actually aren't overrepresented. They're just more power heavy and less balanced with contact, speed, and defensive specialists.

My other problem with the list in #20 is that it doesn't show what the OP was intending it to regarding Edgar. Yes, there are 17 sluggers who fit the criteria listed; but Martinez wasn't just tagging along at 15th or 16th or whatever. He was 7th. That shows he really was a standout hitter, even amongst an era full of them. No one is calling for the enshrinement of the guys at the bottom of that list (13th-17th are Delgado, Abreu, Giles, Olerud, and Belle - players with very little HOF support).
   63. AROM Posted: June 12, 2017 at 02:11 PM (#5474271)
The Hall of Fame was created for players like David Ortiz. If you have to "discuss" his candidacy, your ratio of talking about the Hall of Fame to actually understanding the Hall of Fame is ######. He's sailing in and deservedly so.


That statement applies better to Roger Clemens or Barry Bonds. Aside from PEDs, some would say the same thing about Jack Morris.

That is why we discuss.
   64. Ziggy: The Platonic Form of Russell Branyan Posted: June 12, 2017 at 02:21 PM (#5474278)
Narrative matters too.


There really isn't any reason to celebrate stories that we told to ourselves. And certainly no reason to honor some players and not others on the basis of stories that we made up.
   65. PreservedFish Posted: June 12, 2017 at 02:24 PM (#5474281)

There really isn't any reason to celebrate stories that we told to ourselves.


Because they are important.

Any number of famous American ideas that address this. "Print the legend." "Yes Virginia there is a Santa Claus."
   66. Jumpy_McFrog Posted: June 12, 2017 at 02:29 PM (#5474286)
Yes, there were more seemingly HOF worthy SLUGGERS during sillyball than from previous eras , but they're coming at the expense of building HOF resumes through other methods.

With that in mind, it's very impressive to me that Kenny Lofton put together the career he did.

If people are going to discount slugging from the 90's, they either need to enshrine fewer 90's players -- which I don't think is a very good answer -- or support more players with standout skills that were relatively low value in the era. The latter would at least would be an interesting argument to me. I'd imagine Lofton shoots up a list like that.
   67. Booey Posted: June 12, 2017 at 03:30 PM (#5474331)
There really isn't any reason to celebrate stories that we told to ourselves. And certainly no reason to honor some players and not others on the basis of stories that we made up.


Ortiz's postseason numbers aren't a made up story. They really happened, and they were crucial in helping his team win 3 WS.
   68. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 12, 2017 at 03:35 PM (#5474336)
If people are going to discount slugging from the 90's, they either need to enshrine fewer 90's players -- which I don't think is a very good answer -- or support more players with standout skills that were relatively low value in the era. The latter would at least would be an interesting argument to me. I'd imagine Lofton shoots up a list like that.

And THAT'S where the Hall of Merit has its most valuable role to play: Calling attention to the Loftons and the Whitakers rather than wasting time lamenting a handful of Rices.
   69. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 12, 2017 at 03:37 PM (#5474339)
Ortiz's postseason numbers aren't a made up story. They really happened, and they were crucial in helping his team win 3 WS.

Some people here actually believe that those numbers are less relevant to a Hall of Fame discussion than the numbers he put up in garbage time when the Red Sox had already been eliminated from the postseason. Hard to imagine anyone would be quite that mad, but I've seen that view expressed more than a few times.
   70. The Polish Sausage Racer Posted: June 13, 2017 at 03:18 PM (#5475146)
It's the Hall of FAME, not Hall of Great Numbers. Ortiz is one of a handful of players even people with no interest in baseball know about.

Of course, I think Maris should be in as well for the same reasons, so no one cares what I think.
   71. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: June 13, 2017 at 07:51 PM (#5475321)
PS. David Wright has not retired.

I don't think Papelbon has officially retired yet either. Wikipedia says he's a free agent.
   72. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 13, 2017 at 08:25 PM (#5475337)
I don't think Papelbon has officially retired yet either. Wikipedia says he's a free agent.

So are Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney.
   73. QLE Posted: June 17, 2017 at 07:43 PM (#5478162)
Fairly late, I admit, but:

Whether or not Ortiz belongs depends on what sort of standard we use. In practical terms, Ortiz in terms of his career is actually rather similar to a clutch of first basemen, in Will Clark, Tony Perez, Orlando Cepeda, and Norm Cash (were it not for WWII and the shorter seasons, Gil Hodges would fit as well): players that had a few great years, and managed to accumulate over 50 WAR for a career, but who didn't really have much prime to go with said peak.

The HOF as it current stands has Perez and Cepeda as inductees, and even the HOM inducted Clark- therefore, Ortiz being inducted by either body would fit with their existing standards, and would not be a mistake to yell about from the rooftops like, say, Rice, or Trevor Hoffman when he inevitably gets in. Whether or not the standards were right, on the other hand....

As for #32:

Dealing only with the position players (I have doubts about pitcher WAR):

Dickey was a catcher, and cannot be directly compared. Wynn had a much greater peak/prime (54.1 WAR10 to 44.7 for Ortiz). Medwick had a better peak and a bit more prime (50.4 WAR10), played in an era with shorter seasons (and therefore deserves something like a 5% boost), and is still not much above the borderline. Slaughter missed three years in his prime to WWII, and lost somewhere between 12 to 15 career WAR as a result. Lemon and Ventura both have slightly better primes than Ortiz (47.9 WAR10 and 47.7 WAR10 respectively), and both lost value due to strikes. Billy Herman has a slightly better prime than Ortiz (45.3 WAR10) that gets better when season length is considered- and, even in his case, his case for a HOF/HOM induction depends on how much war credit he deserves.

Ortiz (as noted above) is basically equal to Clark and Kent (before strike credit), and was somewhat better than Aparicio and Damon by peak/prime. The problem is, Aparicio was clearly a substantial mistake by the HOF, and this exercise on the whole demonstrates why career WAR must be taken with a slight grain of salt- at certain levels for it (between 50 and 70 WAR generally, and especially between 50 and 60 WAR), there is a mixture of very good players who managed to accumulate WAR and great players who, for various reasons (war, the color line, shorter seasons) did not, and any exercise that just draws a line will not adequately separate the two.

   74. cardsfanboy Posted: June 17, 2017 at 09:33 PM (#5478184)
I don't think Papelbon has officially retired yet either. Wikipedia says he's a free agent.


I get he's annoying and stuff, but even last season he wasn't useless, why wouldn't he be able to find a job if he was still looking. If the Cardinals could sign him for 3mil for this year, I would be happy to see it happen.
   75. Tony S Posted: June 18, 2017 at 03:28 PM (#5478315)
Ortiz (as noted above) is basically equal to Clark and Kent


So David Ortiz is Superman after all. :)
   76. AROM Posted: June 19, 2017 at 10:55 AM (#5478535)
I get he's annoying and stuff, but even last season he wasn't useless, why wouldn't he be able to find a job if he was still looking. If the Cardinals could sign him for 3mil for this year, I would be happy to see it happen.


Papelbon really seemed to lose it quickly last year. In the first half he had a 2.83 ERA and a 27-8 K-W, in the second half it was 6.1 innings, 11.37 ERA, 6 walks and 4 strikeouts.

Could have been just a bad stretch that pretty much every pitcher goes through at some point, but the fact that he didn't sign on somewhere else last year (there was plenty of rumored interest) suggests that maybe his arm was not 100%.

Even if his arm was hurting, you still can't count him out. Troy Percival looked like toast at age 35, was retired for his age 36 season, and then while working as a part time instructor started to throw pretty well, and ended his age 37 season with some excellent numbers for the Cardinals.
   77. TDF, situational idiot Posted: June 19, 2017 at 01:52 PM (#5478685)
David Ortiz is going into the HOF because of the "fame" part. Period.

As for the stats, boy I dunno.

I'm coming around more to WAA being better than WAR for such discussions, because WAR rewards players simply for playing time. By WAA, Ortiz (20.4) is in a group of players like Brian Downing (20.7), Mike Cameron (20.8), or Doug DeCinces (20.1). Good players all, but I'm not sure any even belong in the HOVG.

Here's another way to look at it: If you swap him with Edgar Martinez (Edgar on the recent Bosox, Ortiz on the '90s-'00s Mariners), Ortiz doesn't even get serious consideration for the Hall while Martinez sails in. That is how much the "fame" part is going to help Ortiz.
   78. AROM Posted: June 19, 2017 at 02:24 PM (#5478710)
Ortiz playing in a bigger market and having 3 WS rings is a big part of it. But he also has some traditional stat advantages - particularly the 500 homers.

Ortiz is more comparable by most numbers to Frank Thomas than he is to Edgar.

10000+ PA
1400+ runs
2400+ hits
500+ homers
1700+ RBI

Both players hit those above round numbers, but do not exceed in any category by more than 100.

He's no Frank Thomas, because his OBP (an excellent .380) is about 40 points lower than Thomas. Edgar has the same OBP as Thomas, but is 3 seasons worth of PA short of the other two, and short on the power.

As pure offensive players Ortiz and Edgar are close, with Thomas being the best of all worlds - Edgar's OBP and David's power. In WAR Edgar (68) is closer to Thomas (73) than Ortiz (55), but that difference is him being a solid defensive 3B for a few years early in his career. If Edgar had the same overall stats and was a DH from day 1, he'd be around 60 WAR. I don't think many HOF voters are taking into account solid, but unspectacular defensive play at third. The image of Edgar is a DH, and it's his hitting record that is being evaluated.
   79. AROM Posted: June 19, 2017 at 02:31 PM (#5478715)
Among the 500 homer club, Ortiz has the lowest WAR. The closest two are contemporaries and have not gotten the HOF votes.

Gary Sheffield (60)
Sammy Sosa (58)
David Ortiz (55)

Because of the shape of their statistics these two are probably better comps than Edgar is. Ortiz played almost his whole career as a DH, Sheffield played his whole career as the type of defender his manager wished he could write in as a DH.

Why Ortiz and not Sammy? not Gary? I'd be fine if the standards relaxed a bit and they all went in. But if the voters set the standards high enough, then if these guys are off the ballot when Ortiz comes around I would not be inclined to lower them later.
   80. BrianBrianson Posted: June 19, 2017 at 02:39 PM (#5478724)
Sosa is only excluded because he hit so many homeruns people assume he took steroids. Sheffield is probably the posterboy for "no intangibles"
   81. TDF, situational idiot Posted: June 19, 2017 at 03:33 PM (#5478750)
In WAR Edgar (68) is closer to Thomas (73) than Ortiz (55), but that difference is him being a solid defensive 3B for a few years early in his career. If Edgar had the same overall stats and was a DH from day 1, he'd be around 60 WAR. I don't think many HOF voters are taking into account solid, but unspectacular defensive play at third. The image of Edgar is a DH, and it's his hitting record that is being evaluated.
And this is where I think Ortiz's fame is going to help him, because once you scratch the surface the numbers don't.

Martinez has a 74 run advantage in hitting (Rbat) despite playing 2 full seasons (1417 PA) less (Ortiz has a 47 run advantage in replacement level). And even if most voters wouldn't look or think that deeply, Martinez's OPS is slightly higher than Ortiz's despite playing part of his career in a less hitter friendly time, and in a park that was less hitter-friendly.

Again - I think Ortiz will slide in the HOF easily. He has the big round numbers, the rings, the TV exposure all going for him. But I think to equate his production to Martinez you have to keep the analysis pretty shallow. And I think WAA agrees with me - In just Edgar's last 10 seasons (when he was a full-time DH), he was worth 25.4 WAA; if you zero out all of Ortiz's below-average years, (so all of his MIN seasons and one bad BOS year) he still only equals that (25.3 WAA) but it takes him 1700 more PA.

   82. Mom makes botox doctors furious Posted: June 20, 2017 at 06:59 AM (#5479010)
Ortiz sails in.

I have no dog in this, but these things are significant to his cause:

1. Big career counting stats: 540+ HR, 1750+ RBI, 630+ doubles
2. Big in season stats: 50+ doubles, 50+ HR, multiple times 80+ EBH
3. Key member, key voice, key leader on the team that broke the celebrated and much lamented and nationally debated Curse of the Bambino
4. Key member, key voice, key leader on one of the most storied franchises in baseball history
5. Key member, key voice, key leader on a celebrated big market team
6. Moments: Big Papi has MOMENTS that brand him forever in the eyes of those who watched - he's a 'fame' generational player, the face of the Red Sox when they did the impossible
7. He's got a bigger-than-life persona
8. AND - and this can't be overstated - he killed it in his final season. Just raked - the memory lasts.
9. Ended his career with 4 straight 30+ HR seasons

He sails in.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Phil Birnbaum
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 26 June 2017: Confederations Cup shows how sports media in Russia differs from politics
(696 - 8:30am, Jun 29)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogCENTRAL PARK - JULY 1, 2017 10 AM - BBTF ANNUAL SOFTBALL EXTRAVAGANZA
(309 - 8:26am, Jun 29)
Last: Hysterical & Useless

NewsblogLet's Do the Math on Miguel Montero and Jake Arrieta
(13 - 8:21am, Jun 29)
Last: homerwannabee

NewsblogSABR 47 - NYC
(21 - 8:18am, Jun 29)
Last: djordan

NewsblogMiguel Montero after Cubs cut him: ‘People can’t handle the truth’ – Chicago Sun-Times
(25 - 8:03am, Jun 29)
Last: Renegade (((JE)))

NewsblogOT-NBA off season thread
(163 - 7:55am, Jun 29)
Last: Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant

NewsblogAs the Tigers falter, Justin Verlander emerges as an intriguing trade possibility
(25 - 7:39am, Jun 29)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

Gonfalon CubsMeh
(62 - 4:50am, Jun 29)
Last: Moses Taylor, Unwavering Optimist

NewsblogOMNICHATTER needs no reason, just space, for June 28, 217
(94 - 1:28am, Jun 29)
Last: Shredder

NewsblogOT: Summer Soccer Thread 2017
(102 - 10:20pm, Jun 28)
Last: Textbook Editor

NewsblogRon Darling rips Mets’ muscle-head trainers as a ‘joke’ | New York Post
(25 - 10:11pm, Jun 28)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogThe education of New York Yankees prospect Clint Frazier
(6 - 8:57pm, Jun 28)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogDodgers rookie Cody Bellinger has never heard of 'Seinfeld,' teammates hilariously respond
(190 - 8:10pm, Jun 28)
Last: Dog on the sidewalk

NewsblogSprint Speed shows fastest at each position | MLB.com
(40 - 6:57pm, Jun 28)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogMiguel Montero shifts blame to pitchers after Nationals steal seven bases - Chicago Tribune
(75 - 6:40pm, Jun 28)
Last: Cargo Cultist

Page rendered in 0.7501 seconds
47 querie(s) executed