Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Tuesday, January 25, 2022

David Ortiz Lone Inductee Into Hall of Fame

ig Papi” was the only player to clear the 75 percent threshold for induction, according to results of this year’s voting by the Baseball Writers’ Association of America. Ortiz was named on 307 ballots (77.9 percent) in his first year of eligibility.

“I am truly honored and blessed by my selection to the Hall of Fame—the highest honor that any baseball player can reach in their lifetime,” Ortiz said in a statement released by the Boston Red Sox. “I am grateful to the baseball writers who considered my career in its totality, not just on the statistics.”

Jose is Absurdly Correct but not Helpful Posted: January 25, 2022 at 06:56 PM | 120 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hall of fame, red sox

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.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. The Duke Posted: January 25, 2022 at 07:06 PM (#6062484)
A little something for everybody at the induction ceremonies. Ortiz, Oliva and Kaat. All lefties. Too bad the twins didn’t hold onto Ortiz - would have been a Twins induction ceremony.
   2. Mefisto Posted: January 25, 2022 at 07:17 PM (#6062486)
The voters never miss a chance to reinforce my longstanding view that the Hall is a joke.
   3. John Northey Posted: January 25, 2022 at 07:28 PM (#6062488)
Hey, I got as many HOF votes as Jake Peavy and Carl Crawford. Gotta suck to not get even a pity vote.
Prince Fielder got more votes than his dad did - 0.5% vs 0.2%
Joe Nathan and Tim Hudson both cracked 10 votes but not 5% so no more ballots for them, or for Tim Lincecum, Ryan Howard, Mark Teixeira, Justin Morneau, Jonathan Papelbon, Fielder, A.J. Pierzynski, Jake Peavy, and Carl Crawford.

Next year (and probably for the full 10 he can be on the list) Alex Rodriguez gets another shot - 34.3%, a bit worse than Bonds worst, which was his 2nd year at 34.7%.
Jimmy Rollins is the only other 'rookie' to go on to a second year (9.4%).

Falling off: Tim Hudson (sub 5%), Ortiz (made it), Bonds/Clemens/Sosa/Schilling (10 years up).

So 6 gone, 2 added. Opens up spots for 2023 when Carlos Beltran and Francisco Rodriguez are added (only guys I can see getting any real support). I'd bet on Beltran getting in and maybe Scott Rolen (63.2% this year) with Todd Helton & Billy Wagner gaining more ground (both cracked 50%).
   4. JRVJ Posted: January 25, 2022 at 07:49 PM (#6062491)
Really happy for Big Papi getting in.

Sad that Bonds and Clemens didn't get in, but there was no chance that they would be accepted, what with some older writers having an omerta against them (Schilling is his own issue).

I would hope Bonds and Clemens get elected immediately, as soon as they go on a Veterans committee.

Looking forward, the amount of ballot real estate that just opened up is tremendous. There's only candidate with a reasonable shot of making it into the HoF coming on the ballot next year (Beltrán) and in 2024 (Beltré). Rolen is at 63%, so he is almost surely getting in by 2024.

Helton is looking like a reasonable bet, too, though I think he still needs some tailwinds.

I do wonder as to how A-Rod will do next year. Will he pick-up a lot of votes from voters that see him as a clear-cut HoFer but who wanted to punish him on his first year of eligibility?
   5. Ziggy: social distancing since 1980 Posted: January 25, 2022 at 08:01 PM (#6062494)
Congrats to Ortiz. A deserving pick. Glad he's in.

But then, the other story. The hall of Fame reveals itself, once again, as absurd. The voters have seen fit to not elect the all time, and single season, home run King, the greatest player since Ruth. Or the greatest pitcher (with the possible exception of Paige) to have ever faced black players. Good work voters. Bonds and Clemens are such obviously great players, this reflects worse on you than it does on them.
   6. vortex of dissipation Posted: January 25, 2022 at 08:04 PM (#6062495)
Traded by the Mariners while a minor leaguer for Dave Hollins. Hollins had 3.7 WAR after the trade; Ortiz had 55.3 WAR. I guess the M's lost that trade...
   7. DL from MN Posted: January 25, 2022 at 08:05 PM (#6062496)
Congrats to Ortiz. A deserving pick. Glad he's in.


True, and yet he was the 11th or 12th most deserving player on the ballot.
   8. Zach Posted: January 25, 2022 at 08:16 PM (#6062500)
Bonds/Clemens/Sosa/Schilling (10 years up).

One of these things is not like the others.

Still though, does anyone else get the impression that voters are just making up reasons not to support deserving candidates?

I mean, you can do this with everyone. Schilling is a jerk, Beltran has the trash cans, Helton has Coors Field...

A bit more principle in the voting process would be welcome.
   9. Hombre Brotani Posted: January 25, 2022 at 08:17 PM (#6062501)
True, and yet he was the 11th or 12th most deserving player on the ballot.
That's only because a bunch of deserving players are only on the ballet because a bunch of writers won't vote for them.
   10. The Duke Posted: January 25, 2022 at 08:25 PM (#6062503)
Other than Vizquel most of those negative votes should come back to those who lost them. I’m still not sure Rolen and Helton will get there. Maybe as new voters replace old. No one is out there pounding the drum from these guys.
   11. Bret Sabermatrician Posted: January 25, 2022 at 08:33 PM (#6062505)
So they elected someone with a failed drug that had his best season at 40, but not the people who they suspect used who were already all time greats with fairly normal all time great aging curves.
   12. SoSH U at work Posted: January 25, 2022 at 08:36 PM (#6062506)
There is absolutely no reason to think Rolen will have to wait past 2024, Duke (and he’s likely to make it next year). He’s gone from 10 percent to 63 percent in four years. The last 15 percent is actually the easiest.

Helton will also make it.

Wagner has a chance, but he could run out of time.
   13. villageidiom Posted: January 25, 2022 at 09:16 PM (#6062510)
So they elected someone with a failed drug that had his best season at 40, but not the people who they suspect used who were already all time greats with fairly normal all time great aging curves.
They elected someone who *might* have failed a drug test who had his best season at 31, 2nd best season at 30, and 3rd best season at 29.

Or are you talking about a different election year? Or maybe a different sport? I want to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not, like, making #### up.
   14. John Northey Posted: January 25, 2022 at 09:17 PM (#6062511)
We have a few quiet years coming up for the HOF - Highest WAR next year is Chase Utley who I don't see getting in, then Joe Mauer (same). Bartolo Colon and his 247 wins will get some votes, then comes in 2025 a possible 100% guy in Ichiro Suzuki (why wouldn't you vote for him?), CC Sabathia who will get in at some point but probably not year one, Dustin Pedroia will also have a lot of support. I like to joke about Russell Martin getting support (he did break 2 teams 20 year playoff droughts in his first year with each team after all), but realistically he probably is a one and done.

Yeah, outside of Ichiro the next few years will be a great time for guys like Rolen, Helton, Wagner, and others to sneak in. Maybe Kent gets a big boost in his final year but I doubt it.
   15. Jack Sommers Posted: January 25, 2022 at 09:19 PM (#6062512)
This year's vote summarized perfectly here
   16. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: January 25, 2022 at 09:29 PM (#6062513)
I am so happy for David Ortiz, and will try to attend this July to celebrate his induction. As others have noted already, next year's ballot is probably the first time in many years that even "Big Hall" voters will be hard-pressed to find 10 legit candidates on the ballot. But the "Today's Game" committee will be very, very interesting.

First, the returning candidates entering 2023:

Rolen 63.2% It will be his 6th year
Helton 52% 5th
Wagner 51% 8th
Jones 41.1% 6th
Sheffield 40.6% 9th
ARod 34.3% 2nd
Kent 32.7% 10th
Ramirez 28.9% 7th
Vizquel 23.9% 6th
Pettitte 10.7% 5th
Rollins 9.4% 2nd
Abreu 8.6% 4th
Buehrle 5.8% 3rd
Hunter 5.3% 3rd

Beltran seems like the only new guy who will definitely break 5%. I guess KRod could, but Nathan got 4.3% this year, so I can't imagine Rodrigues is going to do a ton better. And it seems like Wagner kind of stalled out.

Then in 2024 you've got Beltre, who should glide in; Mauer, who should do pretty well; and Utley, who should do at least as well as Rollins, right?

So in 2023, if you were trying to put 10 names on your ballot, you'd probably do something like this:
Rolen
Helton
Beltran
Wagner
Jones
Sheffield
ARod
Kent
Ramirez
One of Vizquel, Pettitte, Rollins, Abreu, Buerhle, Hunter, or KRod.

There aren't 10 Hall of Famers there, IMO, and that's the first time in many years I feel that way.

Then you've got the Today's Era ballot. They have met twice before:

In late 2016, they met for the first time. One must get at least 12 of 16 people on the committee to vote for you, and you can vote for up to four candidates. In 2016, they voted:

Schuerholz 16
Selig 15
Pinella 7
Baines, Albert Belle, Will Clark, Hershiser, Davey Johnson, McGwire, and Steinbrenner all got less than 5 votes.

In 2018, they voted:

Lee Smith 16
Baines 12
Pinella 11 (one short!)
Belle, Joe Carter, Will Clark, Hershiser, Davey Johnson, Charlie Manuel, and Steinbrenner all got fewer than 5 votes.

So late in 2022, the committee will meet again. They will pick 10 candidates. It could include:

Schilling
Bonds
Clemens
Sosa
McGwire
Bruce Bochy (eligible for the 1st time: he has the most wins of anybody not in the HOF, and one of 10 managers with at least 3 WS titles. The other nine are in the HOF already).
Kenny Lofton
Fred McGriff
Rafael Palmeiro
Kevin Brown

That is a hell of a list of 10 candidates. I'd vote for Bochy, Schilling, Bonds, and Clemens, and get it done with.
   17. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 25, 2022 at 09:29 PM (#6062514)

There is absolutely no reason to think Rolen will have to wait past 2024,


The best first-timer on next year's ballot is Carlos Beltran, who is implicated in the 2017 Astros scandal. The 2nd-best first timer, by WAR, is John Lackey.

I would hope Bonds and Clemens get elected immediately, as soon as they go on a Veterans committee.


They'll actually be up on the Vet committee this December, so their buddies can get them...oops, they don't have any buddies.
   18. SoSH U at work Posted: January 25, 2022 at 09:38 PM (#6062515)
As mentioned elsewhere, unless Ortiz’s election produces a change in attitude, I don’t see the vets putting in Bonds, Clemens, etc.
   19. tshipman Posted: January 25, 2022 at 09:49 PM (#6062518)
What a ####### joke. I guess the message is that you can go ahead and do PEDs, just as long as you're only pretty good, and not an all time great player.
   20. Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network) Posted: January 25, 2022 at 09:53 PM (#6062521)
Can't see Beltran getting in next year unless all the manufactured Astros outrage somehow dissipates in the next 12 months.
   21. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: January 25, 2022 at 10:02 PM (#6062524)
I'm happy Papi made it, but its dumb that Bonds and Clemens didn't.

HOF voting is a ####### joke.
   22. The Duke Posted: January 25, 2022 at 10:49 PM (#6062534)
19. Actually, the big takeaway is they Manfred came out explicitly and told people to ignore the Big Papi supposed positive test result which implies he knows a) he has a positive test but not for anything that is now banned b) he doesn’t actually have a valid positive test or c) there’s something about it that is disqualifying because manfred hasn’t really done that for anyone else. The writers obviously listened.

I also thought it was funny that Vizquel is the only guy who got a materially higher vote from private voters. Those guys must have had a lot of 4-5 name ballots.
   23. tshipman Posted: January 25, 2022 at 11:01 PM (#6062537)
19. Actually, the big takeaway is they Manfred came out explicitly and told people to ignore the Big Papi supposed positive test result which implies he knows a) he has a positive test but not for anything that is now banned b) he doesn’t actually have a valid positive test or c) there’s something about it that is disqualifying because manfred hasn’t really done that for anyone else. The writers obviously listened.


What an absolute crock of horseshit.
   24. Best Dressed Chicken in Town Posted: January 26, 2022 at 12:04 AM (#6062538)
I think it would be ridiculous for players who have been rejected by the BBWAA to immediately get in via the Vets Committee. They should have to wait another 5 years. I say this as someone who believes Bonds and Clemens belong in the HOF.
   25. . . . . . . Posted: January 26, 2022 at 01:25 AM (#6062543)
So using PEDs is OK as long as you’re a charismatic guy who kisses the right asses. I mean, that is in fact how the world works, but it would be better if the HOF didnt so nakedly reflect how ###### up the world is.
   26. Walt Davis Posted: January 26, 2022 at 03:09 AM (#6062550)
Congrats to Ortiz. I wouldn't have voted for him but there are a number of similar bats in the HoF so he fits.
   27. Walt Davis Posted: January 26, 2022 at 03:10 AM (#6062551)
Congrats to Ortiz. I wouldn't have voted for him but there are a number of similar bats in the HoF so he fits.
   28. . Posted: January 26, 2022 at 06:31 AM (#6062553)
It's like really weird that the voters went thumbs-down on Bonds and Clemens because of roids, and at the same time, elected Ortiz.
   29. bachslunch Posted: January 26, 2022 at 06:35 AM (#6062554)
I’m okay with Ortiz being elected. But that doesn’t change the fact that the BBHoF and its selection procedure is a raging, irrelevant farce. There’s a good reason why I’ve lost interest in the institution and the way players are selected for enshrinement.
   30. Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc Posted: January 26, 2022 at 06:42 AM (#6062556)
Re 23: Don't try to sugarcoat it, man.

Re 29: This.
   31. Lassus Posted: January 26, 2022 at 07:31 AM (#6062558)
A big concern was my rural New York peoples getting their economy on, and Ortiz fulfills that for this election, and I'm grateful.

I think the increasingly shrill bitching about the HOF being a joke in its entirety is a tantrum-evoking oversell, despite their obvious steroid missteps that pretty clearly follow the common crowd bell curve. I personally expect correction eventually, but am not troubled by the fact that we're not seeing it yet. YMMV, granted.

(I'm kinda more troubled by the tiny failure of Hudson falling off the ballot. I don't entirely think he's a HOFer, but he deserved a bit more consideration than THAT.)
   32. DL from MN Posted: January 26, 2022 at 08:20 AM (#6062564)
using PEDs is OK as long as you’re a charismatic guy who kisses the right asses.


Just make sure to lie about it and deny everything. Mark McGwire made the fatal mistake of admitting it and apologizing.
   33. DL from MN Posted: January 26, 2022 at 09:06 AM (#6062570)
I think it would be ridiculous for players who have been rejected by the BBWAA to immediately get in via the Vets Committee


It already happened with Jack Morris. Also, gaining over 60% of the vote is not exactly the same as being "rejected". Tim Hudson got rejected, Roger Clemens got a large majority of voter support.
   34. Jobu is silent on the changeup Posted: January 26, 2022 at 10:01 AM (#6062577)
Better than Harold Baines.
   35. Rally Posted: January 26, 2022 at 10:37 AM (#6062583)
The best first-timer on next year's ballot is Carlos Beltran, who is implicated in the 2017 Astros scandal. The 2nd-best first timer, by WAR, is John Lackey.


Definitely not a hall of famer, but Lackey did help the two greatest curse-breaking teams of this century win a title. And he also won a WS with the Red Sox.

When Lackey debuted in mid-2002, if someone told you he’d go on to win WS titles with the Angels, Red Sox, and Cubs, you’d probably assume he’d have to be a hall of famer.
   36. John DiFool2 Posted: January 26, 2022 at 10:39 AM (#6062586)
I remain amused by all of the WAR handwringing against Papi ("Oh! Papi is short of the standard on WAR & JAWS!") when the DH penalty was basically a halfassed guess, and a more rigorous attempt to quantify it would likely lessen it. [c.f. http://www.hardballtimes.com/re-examining-wars-defensive-spectrum/ ] Just a mere +5 run bump per season and he's clearly over 60 and around the median 1B JAWS line.

Yes, he got in over at least 3 clearly superior players, and the silly inconsistent nay illogical standards do perturb me. But as a Sox fan I'll never forget his '04 heroics.
   37. villageidiom Posted: January 26, 2022 at 10:54 AM (#6062589)
What an absolute crock of horseshit.
In that it is (a) a factual statement and (b) needs to be horseshit for your point to hold, sure.

Just make sure to lie about it and deny everything. Mark McGwire made the fatal mistake of admitting it and apologizing.
OK, first of all, the argument against Roger Clemens is that he's lying about it and denying everything. So, in the kindest terms, GTFO with that nonsense.

Second, Ortiz hasn't really said anything different than Bonds did. At its simplest, they both said they used stuff but weren't aware of what was in it. In Bonds' case, there's a whole lot of testimony and evidence against him to demonstrate that he really did use PEDs, knowingly or not. In Ortiz's case, there's a positive test without screening for false positives, which MLB has told people should not be considered as a failed test or evidence of PED usage, and 15 years or so of rigorous PED testing without a single failed test.

People like to dance around the obvious differences between Ortiz and the Mitchell Report Gang so they can pretend the differences aren't there, and make it seem like the different decisions about them are arbitrary. They're not at all arbitrary. They might be temporal differences - in that most of the Mitchell Report Gang didn't subsequently play for over a decade in an era of rigorous PED testing - and they might not be differences we should care about anyway. But that's an entirely different argument than "McGwire is being persecuted because he's just so gosh darn honest".
   38. Mike A Posted: January 26, 2022 at 11:02 AM (#6062592)
I'm kinda more troubled by the tiny failure of Hudson falling off the ballot. I don't entirely think he's a HOFer, but he deserved a bit more consideration than THAT
Yeah, this was a bit annoying.

Hudson and Ortiz have roughly the same fWAR and bWAR, yet one gets in on the first ballot and the other gets 12 whole votes and *poof* he's gone.
   39. DL from MN Posted: January 26, 2022 at 11:09 AM (#6062596)
they both said they used stuff but weren't aware of what was in it


Which is an obvious lie
   40. SoSH U at work Posted: January 26, 2022 at 11:17 AM (#6062601)
But that's an entirely different argument than "McGwire is being persecuted because he's just so gosh darn honest".


Also, McGwire hadn't gone anywhere in the voting before he was honest. It wasn't a fatal admission.
   41. . Posted: January 26, 2022 at 11:29 AM (#6062605)
David Ortiz wasn't remotely as good a baseball player as Barry Bonds, both roided, and the worse player is in and the better player is out -- on the first ballot, no less.

That's on its face a laughable state of affairs. There's no serious defense for it.
   42. Ron J Posted: January 26, 2022 at 11:32 AM (#6062606)
#39 Not in that time frame. There were two major issues. Contaminated supplements (which generated positives for Nandrolone usually) and the tests used for Nandrolone (which is tricky to test for -- they actually use indirect tests).

The false positive rate for those tests could not be lower than 20% (and since there were no penalties, they didn't bother with the B sample protocols which help mitigate other issues such as handling errors).
   43. Jose is Absurdly Correct but not Helpful Posted: January 26, 2022 at 11:43 AM (#6062609)
David Ortiz wasn't remotely as good a baseball player as Barry Bonds


You don't say!
   44. DL from MN Posted: January 26, 2022 at 11:53 AM (#6062610)
David Ortiz wasn't remotely as good a baseball player as Barry Bonds


Voters don't vote based on how good the baseball player was. They vote on how good the baseball player made them feel while they were watching them play. They're substituting "Did I like this player the best?" for "Was this player one of the best?". That helps explain the obsession with closers who "win the game" by pitching the 9th inning.
   45. Rally Posted: January 26, 2022 at 11:58 AM (#6062611)
Interesting that Joe Nathan is one and done while 50% are voting for Billy Wagner.

I’ll have to look at the stats but my impression is they were equivalent.
   46. Lassus Posted: January 26, 2022 at 12:06 PM (#6062615)
Voters don't vote based on how good the baseball player was. They vote on how good the baseball player made them feel while they were watching them play.

Well, they do both, in varying degrees. It's the "varying degrees" part that's the problem.

And as previously noted above, plenty of voters DO vote based on how good the player was. A LOT of voters. It just wasn't enough voters.
   47. tshipman Posted: January 26, 2022 at 12:14 PM (#6062619)
People like to dance around the obvious differences between Ortiz and the Mitchell Report Gang so they can pretend the differences aren't there, and make it seem like the different decisions about them are arbitrary. They're not at all arbitrary. They might be temporal differences - in that most of the Mitchell Report Gang didn't subsequently play for over a decade in an era of rigorous PED testing - and they might not be differences we should care about anyway. But that's an entirely different argument than "McGwire is being persecuted because he's just so gosh darn honest".


People ignore it because it has absolutely nothing to do with why Ortiz got elected. The voters who said yes to Ortiz and no to Bonds weren't doing a close reading of Manfred's statements. It's just #### that extremely online people tell themselves to justify cognitive dissonance.
   48. DL from MN Posted: January 26, 2022 at 12:15 PM (#6062620)
Interesting that Joe Nathan is one and done while 50% are voting for Billy Wagner.

I’ll have to look at the stats but my impression is they were equivalent.


They were both bad in the postseason
   49. John DiFool2 Posted: January 26, 2022 at 12:37 PM (#6062623)
Just sharing for the heck of it...

I took a quick gander at the stat lines of the Two Willies-if they belong Ortiz does too. Stargell was the last of the ones I looked at (Thome too-yes he was better than all 3).

Then went to the store.

We Are Family was playing inside.

Pops = Papi of course.
   50. Jack Sommers Posted: January 26, 2022 at 01:00 PM (#6062628)
Does anyone else think, like I do, that JAWS would be a better system if he used WAA instead of WAR ?

   51. cookiedabookie Posted: January 26, 2022 at 02:02 PM (#6062632)
There aren't 10 Hall of Famers there, IMO, and that's the first time in many years I feel that way

Disagree. I'm pretty comfortable with A-Rod, Rolen, Ramirez, Jones, Pettitte, Beltran, Sheffield, Kent, Abreu, Buerhle, and Helton, in that order. But only having to cut one guy is the best it's been in a while.

Also, can't imagine they cut Pinella after missing by one vote. My guess is McGriff, Schilling, and Bochy get in
   52. SoSH U at work Posted: January 26, 2022 at 02:09 PM (#6062633)
My guess is McGriff, Schilling, and Bochy get in


You never know how Schilling will fare, given nobody liked him, but that's still where I'd put my money.
   53. DanG Posted: January 26, 2022 at 02:33 PM (#6062638)
I took a quick gander at the stat lines of the Two Willies-if they belong Ortiz does too. Stargell was the last of the ones I looked at (Thome too-yes he was better than all 3).
Thome, McCovey and Stargell are all better than Ortiz. Still, this is his cohort, in the HOF for their bat and nothing else.

I think Ortiz has a solid case as one of the top 50 offensive players in baseball history. He ranks 39th in wRC+ (8000+ PA). He ranks 42nd in Batting Wins. He ranks 47th in OWL% (8000+ PA).

Here are the top 65 in wRC+:

1 Babe Ruth       10616 197 
2 Ted Williams     9791 188 
3 Lou Gehrig       9660 173 
4 Rogers Hornsby   9475 173 
5 Barry Bonds     12606 173 n
6 Mickey Mantle    9909 170 
7 Ty Cobb         13072 165 
8 Stan Musial     12712 158 
9 Jimmie Foxx      9670 158 
10 Tris Speaker   11988 157 
11 Mel Ott        11337 156 
12 Willie Mays    12493 154 
13 Frank Thomas   10075 154 
14 Frank Robinson 11743 153 
15 Hank Aaron     13940 153 
16 Manny Ramirez   9774 153 n
17 Jeff Bagwell    9431 149 
18 Joey Votto      8128 149 n
19 Edgar Martinez  8678 147 
20 Honus Wagner   11739 147 
21 Mike Schmidt   10062 147 
22 Willie McCovey  9691 145 
23 Willie Stargell 9026 145 
24 Jim Thome      10313 145 
25 Eddie Collins  12037 144 
26 Harry Heilmann  8960 144 
27 Ed Delahanty    8389 144 
28 Nap Lajoie     10460 144 
29 Eddie Mathews  10101 143 
30 Miguel Cabrera 10993 143 n
31 Roger Connor    8837 143 
32 H
Killebrew    9831 142 
33 Chipper Jones  10614 141 
34 Albert Pujols  12690 141 n
35 Gary Sheffield 10947 141 n
36 Alex Rodriguez 12207 141 n
37 Larry Walker    8030 140 
38 Jason Giambi    8908 140 n
*39 David Ortiz   10091 140*
40 Duke Snider     8237 139 
41 Reggie Jackson 11416 139 
42 Sam Crawford   10594 138 
43 Jack Clark      8230 138 n
44 Jesse Burkett   9605 137 
45 Reggie Smith    8050 137 n
46 V
Guerrero     9059 136 
47 Will Clark      8283 136 n
48 Paul Waner     10762 135 
49 Carlos Delgado  8657 135 n
50 Joe Morgan     11329 135 
51 Fred McGriff   10174 134 n
52 Cap Anson      11319 134 
53 Sherry Magee    8546 134 n
54 Al Kaline      11597 134 
55 Ken Singleton   8559 134 n
56 Bob Johnson     8047 133 n
57 Joe Medwick     8142 133 
58 George Brett   11625 132 
59 R
Henderson   13346 132 
60 Billy Williams 10519 132 
61 Rod Carew      10550 132 
62 Wade Boggs     10740 132 
63 Todd Helton     9453 132 n
64 Tony Gwynn     10232 132 
65 Ken Griffey Jr 11304 131 
   54. DanG Posted: January 26, 2022 at 02:39 PM (#6062641)
Top 65 in Batting Wins:

1 Babe Ruth+ (22)      130.0 10626 
2 Barry Bonds 
(22)     122.5 12606 n
3 Ty Cobb
+ (24)        110.0 13103 
4 Ted Williams
+ (19)   110.0 9792 
5 Stan Musial
+ (22)     94.3 12721 
6 Henry Aaron
+ (23)     92.6 13941 
7 Lou Gehrig
+ (17)      89.9 9665 
8 Tris Speaker
+ (22)    87.6 12020 
9 Rogers Hornsby
+ (23)  85.8 9481 
10 Mickey Mantle
+ (18)  85.2 9910 
11 Willie Mays
+ (23)    84.1 12545 
12 Frank Robinson
+ (2179.0 11744 
13 Mel Ott
+ (22)        77.4 11348 
14 Honus Wagner
+ (21)   73.0 11756 
15 Jimmie Foxx
+ (20)    72.0 9677 
16 Frank Thomas
+ (19)   69.7 10075 
17 Albert Pujols 
(21)   68.9 12690 n
18 Eddie Collins
+ (25)  66.6 12087 
19 Dan Brouthers
+ (19)  66.0 7691 
20 Manny Ramirez 
(19)   65.0 9774 n
21 Nap Lajoie
+ (21)     61.7 10468 
22 Cap Anson
+ (27)      61.4 11331 
23 Miguel Cabrera 
(19)  61.3 10993 n
24 Jeff Bagwell
+ (15)   58.8 9431 
25 Alex Rodriguez 
(22)  58.6 12207 n
26 Jim Thome
+ (22)      58.3 10313 
27 Mike Schmidt
+ (18)   58.2 10062 
28 Roger Connor
+ (18)   57.3 8847 
29 Willie McCovey
+ (2255.9 9692 
30 C
. Yastrzemski+ (2355.9 13992 
31 Gary Sheffield 
(22)  55.4 10947 n
32 Chipper Jones
+ (19)  55.2 10614 
33 Mark McGwire 
(16)    54.8 7660 n
34 Eddie Mathews
+ (17)  53.8 10101 
35 Sam Crawford
+ (19)   53.3 10625 
36 R
. Henderson+ (25)   53.3 13346 
37 Ed Delahanty
+ (16)   52.4 8402 
38 Reggie Jackson
+ (2152.4 11418 
39 Edgar Martinez
+ (1852.3 8674 
40 H
. Killebrew+ (22)   52.1 9833 
41 Harry Heilmann
+ (1751.6 8972 
*42 David Ortiz+ (20)   51.4 10091*
43 Johnny Mize+ (15)    51.3 7372 
44 Mike Trout 
(1129)  51.1 5660 n
45 Joey Votto 
(1537)  50.9 8128 n
46 W
. Stargell+ (21)    50.7 9027 
47 Joe Morgan
+ (22)     50.6 11329 
48 Al Kaline
+ (22)      50.0 11597 
49 George Brett
+ (21)   49.7 11625 
50 Joe DiMaggio
+ (13)   49.5 7672 
51 Dick Allen 
(15)      49.4 7315 n
52 Jesse Burkett
+ (16)  48.9 9629 
53 Ken Griffey Jr
+ (2247.6 11304 
54 Paul Waner
+ (20)     47.5 10767 
55 Joe Jackson 
(13)     47.2 5697 n
56 Rafael Palmeiro 
(2046.7 12046 n
57 Wade Boggs
+ (18)     46.3 10740 
58 Eddie Murray
+ (21)   45.9 12817 
59 Jason Giambi 
(20)    44.4 8908 n
60 Billy Hamilton
+ (1444.2 7609 
61 Dave Winfield
+ (22)  44.1 12358 
62 Lance Berkman 
(15)   44.0 7814 n
63 V
. Guerrero+ (16)    43.8 9059 
64 Fred McGriff 
(19)    43.6 10174 n
65 Tony Gwynn
+ (20)     42.8 10232 
   55. DanG Posted: January 26, 2022 at 02:48 PM (#6062643)
Top 64 in OWL% (minimum 8000 PA):

1 Babe Ruth+ (22)       .858 10626 
2 Ted Williams
+ (19)    .857 9792 
3 Barry Bonds 
(22)      .815 12606 n
4 Rogers Hornsby
+ (23)  .815 9481 
5 Ty Cobb
+ (24)         .809 13103 
6 Mickey Mantle
+ (18)   .804 9910 
7 Lou Gehrig
+ (17)      .803 9665 
8 Jimmie Foxx
+ (20)     .780 9677 
9 Stan Musial
+ (22)     .779 12721 
10 Tris Speaker
+ (22)   .778 12020 
11 Honus Wagner
+ (21)   .763 11756 
12 Ed Delahanty
+ (16)   .758 8402 
13 Nap Lajoie
+ (21)     .758 10468 
14 Willie Mays
+ (23)    .747 12545 
15 Larry Walker
+ (17)   .746 8030 
16 Joey Votto 
(1537)  .745 8128 n
17 Mel Ott
+ (22)        .743 11348 
18 Frank Robinson
+ (21.743 11744 
19 Harry Heilmann
+ (17.741 8972 
20 Roger Connor
+ (18)   .738 8847 
21 Sam Crawford
+ (19)   .738 10625 
22 Todd Helton 
(17)     .736 9453 n
23 Henry Aaron
+ (23)    .733 13941 
24 Frank Thomas
+ (19)   .732 10075 
25 Manny Ramirez 
(19)   .731 9774 n
26 Jesse Burkett
+ (16)  .727 9629 
27 Mike Schmidt
+ (18)   .727 10062 
28 Cap Anson
+ (27)      .723 11331 
29 Jeff Bagwell
+ (15)   .722 9431 
30 Willie McCovey
+ (22.718 9692 
31 W
. Stargell+ (21)    .717 9027 
32 Eddie Collins
+ (25)  .715 12087 
33 Jim Thome
+ (22)      .713 10313 
34 Edgar Martinez
+ (18.712 8674 
35 Duke Snider
+ (18)    .707 8237 
36 H
. Killebrew+ (22)   .706 9833 
37 Eddie Mathews
+ (17)  .706 10101 
38 Chipper Jones
+ (19)  .705 10614 
39 Joe Morgan
+ (22)     .702 11329 
40 Sherry Magee 
(16)    .700 8557 n
41 Joe Kelley
+ (17)     .699 8161 
42 Joe Medwick
+ (17)    .699 8143 
43 Al Simmons
+ (20)     .699 9520 
44 Paul Waner
+ (20)     .695 10767 
45 Reggie Smith 
(17)    .693 8051 n
46 Miguel Cabrera 
(19)  .688 10993 n
*47 David Ortiz+ (20)   .688 10091*
48 Billy Williams+ (18.688 10519 
49 Gary Sheffield 
(22)  .687 10947 n
50 Al Kaline
+ (22)      .686 11597 
51 Will Clark 
(15)      .685 8283 n
52 Jason Giambi 
(20)    .684 8908 n
53 Alex Rodriguez 
(22)  .684 12207 n
54 Zack Wheat
+ (19)     .684 10007 
55 Fred Clarke
+ (21)    .683 9860 
56 Bob Johnson 
(13)     .682 8051 n
57 Willie Keeler
+ (19)  .679 9616 
58 Carlos Delgado 
(17)  .678 8657 n
59 Albert Pujols 
(21)   .678 12690 n
60 Wade Boggs
+ (18)     .677 10740 
61 C
. Yastrzemski+ (23.677 13992 
62 Jack Clark 
(18)      .674 8230 n
63 George Sisler
+ (15)  .671 9018 
64 Rod Carew
+ (19)      .670 10550 
   56. Karl from NY Posted: January 26, 2022 at 03:07 PM (#6062645)
Ortiz sailed in so easily because of the 2004 and 2007 postseasons. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just pretending. Of course the writers loved that narrative. Hell, if he'd had those postseasons for anyone else besides the media-darling curse-busting Red Sox, he's probably not in yet.

Without those postseasons, he's basically Sheffield or Kent or Beltran, a borderliner who might catch enough notice to build a case or might not. (Whether those postseasons make him deserving is a matter of opinion.)
   57. SoSH U at work Posted: January 26, 2022 at 03:26 PM (#6062648)
Ortiz sailed in so easily because of the 2004 and 2007 postseasons.


The 2013 run didn't hurt either (and even in his terrible ALCS, he managed the biggest hit).

Being the key player on a team that wins multiple championships is always helpful, as it was for Kirby and as will be for Posey. Ortiz was the only player on Boston's first three titles of the 21st century.
   58. tshipman Posted: January 26, 2022 at 04:00 PM (#6062651)
Being the key player on a team that wins multiple championships is always helpful, as it was for Kirby and as will be for Posey. Ortiz was the only player on Boston's first three titles of the 21st century.


I mean, the key difference there is that those guys were actually the best player on a championship team, while Ortiz never was.
   59. SoSH U at work Posted: January 26, 2022 at 04:22 PM (#6062653)
I mean, the key difference there is that those guys were actually the best player on a championship team, while Ortiz never was.


Neither was Kirby. Didn't change how he was seen, however.

Ortiz hit in the middle of the order for all three title teams (and carrying a glove in all the NL games), typically raking. He was seen as the linchpin to those teams.
   60. DL from MN Posted: January 26, 2022 at 04:50 PM (#6062658)
Puckett was also a charismatic personality who had rumors of steroid use.
   61. villageidiom Posted: January 26, 2022 at 04:58 PM (#6062660)
People ignore it because it has absolutely nothing to do with why Ortiz got elected. The voters who said yes to Ortiz and no to Bonds weren't doing a close reading of Manfred's statements. It's just #### that extremely online people tell themselves to justify cognitive dissonance.
The media chatter before MLB and MLBPA's statements in 2009 was all "oooh, he's on the list, heeee's innnnn trrrroooouuuuubbbbllleeeeee", and immediately thereafter would state the MLB and MLBPA caveat on the usefulness of the list any time the list was brought up. Further, Ortiz was not nearly the first name leaked from the list, but in the dozen years after the MLB/MLBPA statement no other names were ever leaked. Like, the fascination with names being on the list as meaning anything was completely dropped by the media, and they've stayed pretty damn consistent on that for 12 years and counting. To pretend that this thing that was (mis)taken as material and damning in 2009 and irrelevant thereafter is only seen as irrelevant to justify cognitive dissonance is ignoring all the facts on the ground. Well, nearly all the facts on the ground, because it ignores everything except Ortiz's name being on the list. That's cognitive dissonance for ya.
   62. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: January 26, 2022 at 05:18 PM (#6062662)
So are posters here angry that Ortiz got elected because he doesn't belong or that he got in before Bonds, Clemens, Sheffield, etc(who I think all belong). Manny and A-rod, IMHO belong, however I can see voters making a distinction as they actually did get caught cheating.

For me the HOF is a museum that tells the story of the history of baseball. Ortiz, stats wise is good enough to be considered(like Andruw), and his narrative pushes him in as you can't really tell the story of the MLB without him over the last 20 years.(also, like Andruw, who, for me, has a case as the greatest OF ever. That carries a lot of weight for me)

I suppose for some see it merely as a Hall of WAR, and that's ok, but I don't see the HOF like that, so for me guys who were good enough stats wise to be considered, then have some narrative which really help enlighten the history of MLB, then I usually consider them in. Rightly or not, I would consider Pettitte over Hudson due to his really solid post season, that narrative pushes him in toward induction for me.
   63. Jack Sommers Posted: January 26, 2022 at 05:19 PM (#6062663)
Ortiz sailed in so easily because of the 2004 and 2007 postseasons. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just pretending. Of course the writers loved that narrative. Hell, if he'd had those postseasons for anyone else besides the media-darling curse-busting Red Sox, he's probably not in yet.

Without those postseasons, he's basically Sheffield or Kent or Beltran, a borderliner who might catch enough notice to build a case or might not. (Whether those postseasons make him deserving is a matter of opinion.)


It's a major factor, to be sure. It's not the only one.

It's really odd though. When one looks at Ortiz vs. Todd Helton, it's pretty interesting. They have the same oWAR, but of course Helton is doing better there with the positional runs. He picks up an 89 run. advantage over Ortiz just for going out to 1b with his glove, before taking into account his actual defense.

Ortiz' OPS+ better by 8 points, and 31 batting runs. Not insignificant, but not very large margins either. But one guy played the field at a very high defensive level for his entire career , So that pulls him comfortably ahead in WAR

Obviously many, probably most of the voters didn't care about this type of analysis. They see the HR and RBI, and the narrative of those post seasons, and Helton becomes an after thought, even before they start making erroneous ballpark adjustments in their heads. And they seem to have forgotten about the narrative of entire career with one team.

So in my view it's a combination of things that just all added up.......the narrative, which is very large, the HR and RBI, which jump off the page for the average voter, and the "likability" factor.....(YMMV on that one.......he's not that likable to me)


There is absolutely nothing wrong with a HOF with David Ortiz in it. Great career. Great Hitter. Great history and a lot of emotion in those stories. He belongs.

But man, the voters just can't pull their heads out of their __ses over PED and recognize the era for what it was and move on.



Player        oWAR OPS+  Rbat Rbaser Rfield WAR/pos    G    PA   AB    R    H  2B 3B  HR  RBI   BB   SO   BA  OBP  SLG  OPS
David Ortiz   56.7  141 455.2  
-39.0  -15.9    55.3 2408 10091 8640 1419 2472 632 19 541 1768 1319 1750 .286 .380 .552 .931
Todd Helton   54.5  133 424.3  
-13.1   76.4    61.8 2247  9453 7962 1401 2519 592 37 369 1406 1335 1175 .316 .414 .539 .953 


Provided by Stathead.com: View Stathead Tool Used
Generated 1/26/2022.
   64. tshipman Posted: January 26, 2022 at 05:59 PM (#6062668)
Like, the fascination with names being on the list as meaning anything was completely dropped by the media, and they've stayed pretty damn consistent on that for 12 years and counting.


Unless you're Sammy Sosa.
   65. tshipman Posted: January 26, 2022 at 06:05 PM (#6062670)
So are posters here angry that Ortiz got elected because he doesn't belong or that he got in before Bonds, Clemens, Sheffield, etc(who I think all belong). Manny and A-rod, IMHO belong, however I can see voters making a distinction as they actually did get caught cheating.


I can only speak for myself.

To me, I accepted the idea that some voters would never vote for someone with steroid allegations. So while I disagreed with it for many reasons because I found it illogical, I accepted that there was this view.

For Ortiz to be elected is galling, because it means it was never really about steroids in the first place. It's particularly insulting because Ortiz is a borderline candidate who was elected on the first ballot, when players much better than him were told to wait.

So if it's not about steroids and it's not about the quality of the player, then what the #### is the Hall of Fame about?
   66. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: January 26, 2022 at 07:41 PM (#6062672)
For Ortiz to be elected is galling, because it means it was never really about steroids in the first place.


Maybe the Ortiz election opens the door? Maybe Sheffield goes next(even though the making an error on purpose thing probably riles people), then the light of day and Bonds and Clemens are admitted. I can see that happening.
   67. The Duke Posted: January 26, 2022 at 08:07 PM (#6062675)
47. You seem quite exercised about the issue, but all you have to do is read the articles accompanying peoples votes to see that Manfred’s statements made a difference. Maybe it’s just a convenient justification but I doubt it.

Here is Manfred’s statement which is directed at Ortiz specifically. https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/91442256

Here is jayson stark on his vote AND the electorates view:

“Now add in the fact that none of those names was ever supposed to leak in the first place. And the commissioner was obviously telling us not to use that report as a reason to not vote for Ortiz.
So why is Big Papi raking in more than 83 percent of the public votes so far, and positioning himself either to be elected on the first ballot or to cruise in next year? I think that covers it.“


There are plenty of others who said the same in their articles. Take away the PED suspicion, he’s an obvious HOFr.
   68. Cooper Nielson Posted: January 26, 2022 at 09:29 PM (#6062682)
Ortiz sailed in so easily because of the 2004 and 2007 postseasons.

I suppose for some see it merely as a Hall of WAR, and that's ok, but I don't see the HOF like that, so for me guys who were good enough stats wise to be considered, then have some narrative which really help enlighten the history of MLB, then I usually consider them in. Rightly or not, I would consider Pettitte over Hudson due to his really solid post season, that narrative pushes him in toward induction for me.

This raises the question: Why aren't postseason stats included in WAR? It seems to be a near-unanimous opinion that playoff/World Series games are more important than regular-season games, and great performances in those games are more memorable. They're also more valuable to the team owners (which is largely what WAR is about).

Does anyone calculate WAR-plus, including postseason/playoff games?
   69. RJ in TO Posted: January 26, 2022 at 10:06 PM (#6062686)
Why aren't postseason stats included in WAR?
Because it mostly doesn't matter when evaluating players. For David Ortiz, he's got about 370 PA of 0.947 OPS in the playoffs. That's equivalent to about an extra 2.5 WAR for him (give or take a bit), if you use his regular season WAR accumulation rates. Even for someone like Jeter, who has 732 PA at an 0.838 OPS, that's likely only about an extra 4 WAR, and there's no batter who has more PA than him. For the massive, massive, massive majority of players, it's not going to move the needle by enough to care.

Besides, there's also the issue of opportunities not being evenly distributed, whether you're really comparing the same things for regular season and post season, and whether WAR is actually the most appropriate way to evaluate the postseason anyway, or something like WPA would be better.
   70. Walt Davis Posted: January 26, 2022 at 10:22 PM (#6062687)
For Ortiz to be elected is galling, because it means it was never really about steroids in the first place.

Not exactly. Logically (a dicey adverb when it comes to the BBWAA), it means that for about half (a bit more I think) of the non-B/C voters, it was never about a true, strict, bright line "he used at least once, knowingly or unknowingly, even if based on kinda flimsy evidence." The other half of them didn't vote for Ortiz, presumably some not considering him worthy and others because of roids. Note there were a sizable chunk of B/C voters who did not vote for Ortiz.

#67: Or it looks like poking around for justification for a vote you want to make anyway. Opening day starts didn't matter one bit until Jack Morris supporters found out he had a lot of them, then suddenly they became an important HoF criterion -- immediately forgotten once Morris was done. (Has anybody seen a cite for the number of opening day starts for Buehrle, Hudson or Pettitte?) The "Manfred excuse" was not extended to Sosa. Did anybody ask Jayson Stark "if the Ortiz allegation is ignored, is the Sosa allegation also ignored?" If so, what was his response?

It's really, really hard to see any other reason for the vote differences between Ortiz and Sosa than that Ortiz's alleged appearance on the list was ignored while Sosa's was not.
   71. rr would lock Shaq's a$$ up Posted: January 27, 2022 at 01:49 AM (#6062690)
In addition to all the stuff mentioned, Ortiz never had the kind of dramatic muscle definition/size changes that Bonds, McGwire and Sosa had, (as well as other HOVG guys from that era who have been forgotten, like Luis Gonzalez and Ken Caminiti) and Ortiz's career high in HR was 54--awesome, but not a video game number. He was also ofc super popular, likable, played in Boston, and had the great postseasons/narrative. Life as we all know is in in fact in some ways a popularity contest, so this result is unsurprising.


then what the #### is the Hall of Fame about?


Well, it is partly about baseball's history and stories, and Ortiz was part of great stories. Bonds, McGwire and Sosa are considered villains, especially ofc Bonds. Ortiz OTOH is seen as a hero. I am not saying it's right, but that's how it is. All that aside, Ortiz deserves to be in the HOF for sure in my opinion.

I will be interested to see if Alex Rodriguez eventually gets in.
   72. Lassus Posted: January 27, 2022 at 07:56 AM (#6062693)
So if it's not about steroids and it's not about the quality of the player, then what the #### is the Hall of Fame about?

Well, Hugh pretty clearly answered this in the - excellent, IMO - post you quoted.
   73. BDC Posted: January 27, 2022 at 09:23 AM (#6062708)
To add slightly to what RJ said, indeed, WAR does not include the postseason so that the baseline for comparison is level. WAR is about figuring out who was better at baseball, and Ortiz happening to get 85 postseason games to Helton's 15 is not relevant to that comparison.

In terms of celebrating fame, the postseason is very popular and widely-viewed and determines championships. It is very hard to keep that out of a vote on a player's stature in baseball history. It's not just about popularity or playing in a big-market big-media center. I have to think that if the Rockies had won three WS including Helton heroics, while the Red Sox puttered along mostly out of contention all those years except for getting swept by the Rockies in '07, then Helton would have been this week's pick handily.

   74. John DiFool2 Posted: January 27, 2022 at 10:17 AM (#6062714)
Well, it is partly about baseball's history and stories, and Ortiz was part of great stories. Bonds, McGwire and Sosa are considered villains, especially ofc Bonds.


Amazing how the great story of the HR chase of 1998 has been completely forgotten, and/or its memory permanently sullied. At the time tho it was a pretty awesome thing.
   75. The Duke Posted: January 27, 2022 at 11:36 AM (#6062726)
70. PED cases come in many flavors. The thing about Ortiz that is different is that he played the bulk of his career under a testing regime and didn’t test positive. Sosa played during the Wild West years and his power collapsed in the year they started testing which led him to leave the game altogether. Perhaps age, perhaps coincidental. Who knows.

The commissioner seemed to direct his 2003 comments at Ortiz specifically. I don’t think anyone really believes that Sosa wasn’t juicing during the Mcgwire years. Of course we don’t know but it’s improbable he was clean. Some people point to the corked bat but that’s a red herring.

I don’t think Sosa is really a good comp for Ortiz. Not as good a hitter but obviously more of a five tool player early in his career. No post season exploits which are a huge selling point for Ortiz.

Even if you write off PEDs I can see concluding Sosa is a borderline HOFr where Ortiz is a gimme.
   76. SoSH U at work Posted: January 27, 2022 at 11:44 AM (#6062728)
Even if you write off PEDs I can see concluding Sosa is a borderline HOFr where Ortiz is a gimme.


I think you're quite right that the timing of Ortiz's career, with his reported appearance on the list coming at the front of his career and playing the bulk of his career in the testing era is a differentiator. But Sammy Sosa had 609 homers, eclipsed 60 three times and was part of the most memorable reagular season in decades. Without PED concerns, he's a Hall lock.
   77. villageidiom Posted: January 27, 2022 at 11:54 AM (#6062731)
Unless you're Sammy Sosa.
I was this close to adding a "Of course I expect a BUT SOSA response" and then talk about that for a bit, but I chose not to. Bad choice by me.

To me, the difference between Sosa and Ortiz - in terms of treatment from HoF voters - is temporal. In the peak of PED stuff Sosa was at least fitting into a guilt-by-association narrative. Like, he was performing on the field at a level of PED users, in the era of PED users. After testing started for real in 2004, Sosa got hurt, got worse, and retired. The notion at the advent of testing is that PED users would either test positive or decline in performance, and Sosa declined in performance. For Sosa the advent of testing coincided with normal ages for a slugger to get hurt or get worse. The timing didn't really give him a chance to build a different narrative in his remaining playing career. So he ended up stuck in a narrative that was "at best guilt by association, at worst guilt" but really was nothing more than guilt by association. In Ortiz's case, he had a dozen years or so playing in the testing era, and doing well throughout.

You could make a case that Sosa got screwed the most in HoF voting. I'm not really interested enough in crowning a champion on that competition, but I think he has the highest ratio of treatment-as-guilty to evidence-of-guilt.
   78. DL from MN Posted: January 27, 2022 at 11:58 AM (#6062732)
Bonds, McGwire and Sosa are considered villains


I don't see McGwire as a villain but Alex Rodriguez sure fits that description
   79. Mefisto Posted: January 27, 2022 at 12:09 PM (#6062736)
McGwire only got treated as a villain after he confessed.
   80. SoSH U at work Posted: January 27, 2022 at 12:22 PM (#6062739)

McGwire only got treated as a villain after he confessed.


How so? It didn't seem like anything changed for McGwire once he confessed to what everyone was already convinced he was guilty of.
   81. DL from MN Posted: January 27, 2022 at 01:00 PM (#6062743)
WAR does not include the postseason


I'm not even sure if the concept of "replacement level" has any meaning for the postseason but we can calculate average performance and give credit for that. That's the way I handle it for Hall of Merit voting.
   82. TDF, trained monkey Posted: January 27, 2022 at 02:24 PM (#6062755)
So first, the Sox are completely missing from the Mitchell Report. Then the Commissioner publicly excuses the "Hero of the Sox", and only him, for a positive test during the 2003 survey (while MLB had no problem with the whispers about anyone else whose name came out of the same tests).

This is what I hate about the steroids debate - the fact that we're supposed to burn certain witches at the stake for even the merest hint of suspicion while completely exonerating others.
   83. Karl from NY Posted: January 27, 2022 at 02:38 PM (#6062758)
Sosa also got screwed by the corked-bat suspension. That makes it really easy to tag him as "cheater" and convince yourself to implicitly convict him of PEDs too.
   84. Jose is Absurdly Correct but not Helpful Posted: January 27, 2022 at 02:40 PM (#6062759)
This is what I hate about the steroids debate - the fact that we're supposed to burn certain witches at the stake for even the merest hint of suspicion while completely exonerating others.


No we're not. You can do what I do and not care about steroids and just evaluate players based on how they performed.
   85. Sweatpants Posted: January 27, 2022 at 03:51 PM (#6062776)
Then the Commissioner publicly excuses the "Hero of the Sox", and only him, for a positive test during the 2003 survey (while MLB had no problem with the whispers about anyone else whose name came out of the same tests).
Who else was named in connection with that? I think Sosa? Maybe Alex Rodriguez, but much later. Ortiz is the only one I remember getting outed for a positive in those tests.
   86. villageidiom Posted: January 27, 2022 at 04:11 PM (#6062778)
Who else was named in connection with that? I think Sosa? Maybe Alex Rodriguez, but much later. Ortiz is the only one I remember getting outed for a positive in those tests.
Barry Bonds, Jason Grimsley, Alex Rodriguez, David Segui, Sammy Sosa, Manny Ramirez, David Ortiz.

All of them had evidence of steroid use outside of the 2003 test, except Sosa and Ortiz.
   87. villageidiom Posted: January 27, 2022 at 04:36 PM (#6062784)
Like, Manny Ramirez was leaked in the same report as Ortiz. The MLB and MLBPA statements about the 2003 test don't gloss over Ramirez. But, like, Ortiz called a press conference and invited the MLBPA head, who regurgitated what was in their statement, in the wake of the leak. And Manny Ramirez tested positive for human chorionic gonadotropin and was suspended for 50 games, only a couple months before the leak.* So it's natural that the statement has not been interpreted as absolving Ramirez.

*Insert "player leaks before testing positive, not the other way around" joke here.
   88. Infinite Yost (Voxter) Posted: January 27, 2022 at 04:45 PM (#6062786)
I do think that Ortiz probably gets a fair amount of mileage out of being a little bit chubby. McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, Rodriguez -- those guys looked like they were carved out of marble. Papi always had some flab here or there. But if you go look at pictures of him in a sleeveless shirt from his playing days . . . those are some huge-ass muscles. They're just surrounded by adipose tissue.

Now, is that dispositive as to his use? Of course not. But playing the "he used / he didn't use because of how he looks" game has always been dumb.

Anyway. This is one of those debates where I can't decide if I'm on one side of it or another. A Hall without the greatest players in it seems silly to me -- but also more clear-cut when the greatest missing players were Blyleven and Santo, who missed out because people didn't know how great they were, not because people thought they were cheats. But I can also see the argument that the Hall of Fame is basically a baseball history museum, and while part of the role of such a museum is to display the greatness of players, like Blyleven, that people overlooked, it's also to reflect the galvanic spotlight that shone on players, like Ortiz, who maybe weren't as good.

Maybe this is just coming down to me being a big hall guy, though I never thought of myself that way. Anyway. I do think both sides have a point, and both sides have weaknesses. If your hall includes Ortiz because of the glitter of his star, do you really have a solid argument for keeping out the likes of Jim Morris? Because if that doesn't come down to how good he was, then what is it? And if it does come down to how good he was, how do you draw the line? Aren't you just drawing it in a slightly different place than the people who would keep Ortiz out?
   89. Walt Davis Posted: January 27, 2022 at 04:56 PM (#6062788)
#85 ... AROD was the first person named (by Selena Roberts in SI). A few months later, Sosa was named (and maybe somebody else) by (not that one) Michael Schmidt in the NYT; a month or so after that, Manny and Ortiz were named.

In addition to all the stuff mentioned, Ortiz never had the kind of dramatic muscle definition/size changes that Bonds, McGwire and Sosa had

You're familiar with Ortiz's minor-league body type? You saw him at 18-20?

From ages 21-26, Ortiz had a 175 ISO. From ages 27-30, he had a 316 ISO. His HR/FB went from 8.8% to 16.4%. That didn't involve an increase in muscle mass? (Really the first jump was at age 25.)

The young David Ortiz was a big, slow, platoon 1B who wasn't hitting for power. His career was in the balance, he had a huge incentive to try steroids. Doesn't mean he did, doesn't mean he did so knowingly, doesn't mean they made a big difference if he did, doesn't mean he didn't stop once testing came in if he ever used.

HR%, AB/HR, HR/FB

SS 21: 2.6, 36, 8.5
DO 21: 2.0, 49, 5.6

SS 22: 3.0, 32, 11.4
DO 22: 2.8, 31, 8.2

SS 23: 2.8, 33, 8.4
DO 23: (just 25 useless PA)

SS 24: 5.2, 18, 13.9
DO 24: 2.1, 42, 5.2

SS 25: 5.5, 17, 15.7
DO 25: 5.2, 17, 12.6

SS 26: 5.7, 16, 18.3
DO 26: 4.3, 21, 10.4

SS 27: 7.4, 13, 21.3
DO 27: 6.1, 15, 14.3

The young Sosa was a better power hitter than the young Ortiz. Sosa was bit better at 21-23, jumped a year earlier and his 2nd jump was a bit bigger. We haven't gotten to Sosa's 98-01 yet which of course was pretty historic but, through age 27, you would have expected Sosa to be the better power hitter. For all we know, Sosa was roiding at 21 of course; for all we know, Ortiz was on nothing but Wheaties. But the skinny, fast Sosa was already a better power hitter than Ortiz. You wouldn't bet on either guy making it to 500 HR or the HoF but if you had to pick one, you'd pick the athletic and powerful Sosa.
   90. alilisd Posted: January 27, 2022 at 08:15 PM (#6062806)
45: Rally I wouldn’t bother. I just don’t think there’s any logical, analytical approach to voting for relievers. For Hoffman it was Saves, for Wagner it seems to be K’s or K rate at least and maybe some ERA+. Logically if you look at Nathan there’s not much to differentiate him from Wagner or Hoffman, but the writers don’t seem to really apply any thinking along those lines
   91. SoSH U at work Posted: January 27, 2022 at 08:58 PM (#6062812)
Also, keep in mind that Wagner got 10 percent of the vote on his first ballot, so it’s not as if his maiden support is that much greater.
   92. It's regretful that PASTE was able to get out Posted: January 27, 2022 at 10:30 PM (#6062819)
Walt:
It's really, really hard to see any other reason for the vote differences between Ortiz and Sosa than that Ortiz's alleged appearance on the list was ignored while Sosa's was not.


Is it? It doesn't seem hard to explain to me, in a world where most of the voting body ignored Dave Stieb and fellated Jack Morris. Ortiz was a postseason legend. Sosa played in two postseasons, batting .245 with 2 home runs in 15 games.

The one thing that seems near-universally true of the MLBPA voters is that they absolutely adore Clutch Performance, and justified or not*, Ortiz is the most famous Clutch Hitter of the 21st century. That is why he was elected first ballot while Gary Sheffield will either be elderly or dead when he is finally elected by a Veterans' Committee. (I am astounded that Curt Schilling is such a raging ####### that he can't get elected despite being well qualified and a postseason legend.)

* (Manny Ramirez put up practically identical slash stats in 25 more postseason games than Ortiz)
   93. SoSH U at work Posted: January 27, 2022 at 10:56 PM (#6062823)
* (Manny Ramirez put up practically identical slash stats in 25 more postseason games than Ortiz)


And yet, there is a huge discrepancy in their championship WPAs (Manny at 14.8 percent, Papi at 63.3 percent).

Ortiz timed his hits fabulously well.
   94. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 28, 2022 at 07:27 AM (#6062833)
And yet, there is a huge discrepancy in their championship WPAs (Manny at 14.8 percent, Papi at 63.3 percent).

Ortiz timed his hits fabulously well.


Lance Berkman also timed his hits fabulously well (82.4% CPA); didn't do much for him in the voting.

(Not arguing the point that postseason matters to the voters - just saying that, as with everything else about the Hall, it would be nice if it mattered in consistent fashion.)
   95. Dennis Eclairskey, closer Posted: January 28, 2022 at 08:49 AM (#6062842)
Logically if you look at Nathan there’s not much to differentiate him from Wagner or Hoffman, but the writers don’t seem to really apply any thinking along those lines

I think Nathan’s postseason failures are much more memorable since they happened against the Yankees

Lance Berkman also timed his hits fabulously well (82.4% CPA); didn't do much for him in the voting.

Berkman had a great rebound 2011 & amazing postseason. Freese got the most memorable hits but Berkman contributed a ton to the playoff run. It was too bad Berkman was only able to play 105 more games split over two more injury-riddled seasons
   96. RJ in TO Posted: January 28, 2022 at 12:11 PM (#6062872)
Lance Berkman also timed his hits fabulously well (82.4% CPA); didn't do much for him in the voting.

Lance Berkman had 224 PA in the post season, while Ortiz had 370, so quantity matters too.

Also, Ortiz's regular season career was 10091 PA while Berkman's was 7814 PA, at roughly equivalent levels of offense - the post-season isn't likely to move the writers much if they don't think you did enough in the regular season and Berkman's career (while very good) is on the short side for a selection by the BBWAA.
   97. villageidiom Posted: January 28, 2022 at 01:19 PM (#6062888)
The one thing that seems near-universally true of the MLBPA voters is that they absolutely adore Clutch Performance, and justified or not*, Ortiz is the most famous Clutch Hitter of the 21st century.

* (Manny Ramirez put up practically identical slash stats in 25 more postseason games than Ortiz)
I once said that Manny Ramirez might have been celebrated as the greatest clutch hitter in Red Sox history, if it weren't for the fact that he had David Ortiz batting ahead of him and stealing the opportunities.
   98. Jose is Absurdly Correct but not Helpful Posted: January 28, 2022 at 01:35 PM (#6062891)
I once said that Manny Ramirez might have been celebrated as the greatest clutch hitter in Red Sox history, if it weren't for the fact that he had David Ortiz batting ahead of him and stealing the opportunities.


Worth noting that in 2004 it was the other way around. Ramirez was batting ahead of Ortiz and Torre didn't really want anything to do with Manny, 3 walks in game 4. They went after Manny the next day* (just one walk). And of course Manny struck out before Ortiz won the ALDS with his homer.

* well that afternoon.
   99. Howie Menckel Posted: January 28, 2022 at 05:54 PM (#6062941)
Berkman v Ortiz

that's this month's Hall of Merit voting.

Berkman finished 4th with 248 voting points - making him the lead holdover entering next year's weak crop.
but he appeared on just 15 of 28 ballots (in spite of all voters needing to choose 15 players and with almost all of the top 10 candidates - setting aside HGH issues - already inducted), with only five electors having him in the top 3.

Ortiz finished 9th (tied with BOBBY Bonds) with 168 voting points.
he appeared on just 11 of 28 ballots, with only two electors having him in the top 3.
   100. blueshaker Posted: January 28, 2022 at 09:30 PM (#6062958)
Why... (bump)
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Newsblog2022-23 NBA Kick-Off Thread
(634 - 4:11am, Dec 02)
Last: aberg

NewsblogSources: Tigers agree to deal with left-hander Matt Boyd
(5 - 3:44am, Dec 02)
Last: Dr. Pooks

NewsblogGaylord Perry, two-time Cy Young winner and master of the spitball, dies at 84
(32 - 2:34am, Dec 02)
Last: sunday silence (again)

NewsblogAaron Judge rumors
(43 - 2:15am, Dec 02)
Last: sunday silence (again)

NewsblogTampa Bay Rays, Zach Eflin reach agreement on 3-year, $40M deal
(1 - 11:20pm, Dec 01)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogThe Great Player of Year X | Articles | Bill James Online
(68 - 11:17pm, Dec 01)
Last: Rally

NewsblogOT - World Cup Thread
(430 - 10:33pm, Dec 01)
Last: AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale

Newsblog13 players who might benefit from change of scenery
(4 - 10:01pm, Dec 01)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogMiguel Cabrera confirms plans to retire after 2023 season, but wants to stay in baseball
(24 - 3:00pm, Dec 01)
Last: alilisd

NewsblogStoried careers of Pujols, Molina come to a close: 'We left a mark'
(73 - 2:35pm, Dec 01)
Last: alilisd

NewsblogPadres, Diamondbacks Among Teams Interested In Xander Bogaerts
(12 - 2:16pm, Dec 01)
Last: alilisd

NewsblogToronto Blue Jays hire Don Mattingly as bench coach
(3 - 11:38am, Dec 01)
Last: Steve Parris, Je t'aime

NewsblogAdd an intriguing team to the Jacob deGrom mix
(3 - 11:21am, Dec 01)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogHot Stove OMNICHATTER 2022
(82 - 10:47am, Dec 01)
Last: The Duke

Hall of Merit2023 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(293 - 10:46am, Dec 01)
Last: bachslunch

Page rendered in 0.7813 seconds
45 querie(s) executed