HoF or Not: David Ortiz

[BishopMVP]

Alright, the Beltre thread has had surprising legs, so let's go with the opposite of Adrian Beltre in a man whose pure stats aren't as impressive, but has certainly spent more than his share of time in the spotlight. And obviously the steroid question looms (perhaps unfairly) over him, so I've included that - though I think there are two separate interesting discussions to be had, one about his record on paper, one about how likely any steroid rumors are.

David Ortiz Statistics and History | Baseball-Reference.com

.286/.380/.552/.931 slash, 2472 hits, 541 HR's, 1419 runs, 1768 RBI's, career 141 OPS+

10 ASG appearances, 5 (and probably a 6th) top 5 MVP finishes, though no MVP wins. BR's HoF metrics Hall Of Fame Statistics Player rank in (·)
Black Ink Batting - 25 (81), Average HOFer ≈ 27
Gray Ink Batting - 161 (73), Average HOFer ≈ 144
Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 171 (65), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 55 (62), Average HOFer ≈ 50
JAWS First Base (27th), 55.5 career WAR/35.0 7yr-peak WAR/45.2 JAWS
Average HOF 1B (out of 19) = 65.9 career WAR/42.5 7yr-peak WAR/54.2 JAWS

But of course part of his legend comes from the postseason stats. .295/.409/.553./.962 17 HR's and multiple iconic game tying or walk off moments, and an absurb .708 OBP in 48 WS PA's.

I don't want to get too much into the steroid rumor, but the basic defense is that Ortiz was always naturally strong, steroids don't improve pitch recognition or contact rates, the test that he (and Manny, and 102 others) failed did not specify a substance, since this was a targeted leak you'd assume if it was HGH or Steroids instead of something like a stimulant the substance would've been leaked as well, and other than A-Rod he's probably been "randomly" tested more than anyone since 2004 and never failed once.

[NobodyHere]

Not Hot

[bhlloy]

Seems like a no brainer to me, the anti-Beltre maybe. Stats aren't otherworldly and DH will count against him, but the larger than life personality, the rings and the postseason reputation just make it feel like it's inevitable to me.

As for the steroid stuff I agree with your take - almost all his stats are during the testing era and he didn't fail a test once. Some people will hold it against him, but I don't think enough will to keep him out.

[MrBug708]

Second ballot guy

[jbergey22]

One of the most likable big market players that came through on the biggest of stages. He should get in

[digamma]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Second ballot guy

I think I've posted this before, but I've never understood this concept. I mean, there's not a separate wing in the HoF for first ballot HoF'ers. They get an up or down vote. I suppose in a really competitive year, you could argue that someone may need to wait until next year because of the ten vote max, but I don't get the concept of I'll leave him off this year because it's his first vote but next year he'll be deserving. What changes between the first ballot and the second?

[tarcone]

Yes. 500 Hrs and post season dominance.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by digamma

I think I've posted this before, but I've never understood this concept. I mean, there's not a separate wing in the HoF for first ballot HoF'ers. They get an up or down vote. I suppose in a really competitive year, you could argue that someone may need to wait until next year because of the ten vote max, but I don't get the concept of I'll leave him off this year because it's his first vote but next year he'll be deserving. What changes between the first ballot and the second?

Think it's just a (dumb) old school mentality. "First ballot is reserved for the true legends"...There have been writers who tried to legitimately argue that since Babe Ruth was a 1st ballot HOF, anyone else deserving would need to be at a comparable level.

[Marmel]

Of course NOT. Well, not until McGuire, Bonds and Sosa are in, among others. Of course, everyone excuses his roid use for some odd reason.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Originally Posted by digamma

I think I've posted this before, but I've never understood this concept. I mean, there's not a separate wing in the HoF for first ballot HoF'ers. They get an up or down vote. I suppose in a really competitive year, you could argue that someone may need to wait until next year because of the ten vote max, but I don't get the concept of I'll leave him off this year because it's his first vote but next year he'll be deserving. What changes between the first ballot and the second?

The only argument I've heard from a writer that even comes close to making me think there should be something separate is that the players themselves (at least many of them) think there should be a distinction. I still think it's poppycock, but that's the best explanation I've heard.

[MrBug708]

I actually agree, but that's not the way it's setup to be done. I think it's a yes or no, one time, but baseball writers still have enormous egos. So you have 10 chances to do so and I think Ortiz isn't a first ballot guy because of it. Sort of like Biggio

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Marmel

Of course NOT. Well, not until McGuire, Bonds and Sosa are in, among others. Of course, everyone excuses his roid use for some odd reason.

Papi was always huge with a ton of talent. Even in Minnesota before his breakout you could see the talent. I have the slightest idea why they gave up on him. They were pushing defense at the time and I suppose they didnt figure his bat would ever be enough to replace his lack of defense is all I have.

It is hard to say the effects of steroids on certain individuals but Papi is a unique situation IMO. He was tested positive for something(who even knows what it was) in a test that wasnt even a test that was suppose to be released. I think Papi was more of a finding the right park and right team to help him reach that talent level he always had more than anything to do with PEDs.

Im sick of PEDs holding people out of HOF anyway. Certain individuals will be linked to roids now and they may have never even touched anything like that in their life. Just put the deserving in and just add a note at the bottom announcing when the MLB drug policy went into effect and if an individual was ever suspended for it. Writers arent educated enough to be the moral police on what was/is right and the effects of each PED.

[jeff061]

Number 1 give away for steroids seems to be longevity, ability to bounce back from injury and maintaining elite ability at an advanced age.

Take that with the shadow he already is under, I think there's going to be a lot of post-retirement pot shot and reports on him. They'll dog him and eventually keep him from hall.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Number 1 give away for steroids seems to be longevity, ability to bounce back from injury and maintaining elite ability at an advanced age.

Take that with the shadow he already is under, I think there's going to be a lot of post-retirement pot shot and reports on him. They'll dog him and eventually keep him from hall.

I agree with this in that it will be assumed he was using.

Problem I have he never tested positive in a legit drug test that actually mattered in the however many years MLB has been doing it. That point really needs to be emphasized. IMO that drug test from 2003 should be ignored as it was suppose to be confidential and technically he broke no MLB rules. If he was taking roids at that time it will only hurt him down the road.

In all honesty, It doesnt really matter. The HOF has lost so much prestige since I was a child that being a HOF'er matters very little to me anymore.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by jeff061

ability to bounce back from injury

If used specifically for this purpose, and for a limited time, I don't really see why this should be a dis qualifier. The use of steroids for a limited time to accelerate recovery (such as for respiratory complaints) is pretty widely accepted now. Why not for athletes?

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

I agree with this in that it will be assumed he was using.

Problem I have he never tested positive in a legit drug test that actually mattered in the however many years MLB has been doing it. That point really needs to be emphasized. IMO that drug test from 2003 should be ignored as it was suppose to be confidential and technically he broke no MLB rules. If he was taking roids at that time it will only hurt him down the road.

In all honesty, It doesnt really matter. The HOF has lost so much prestige since I was a child that being a HOF'er matters very little to me anymore.

Clemens, McGuire, Bonds, etc? I don't believe any of them tested positive.

[molson]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Clemens, McGuire, Bonds, etc? I don't believe any of them tested positive.

I don't think there was testing for the majority of those guys' careers.

And those three guys seemed to pass into the media/societal "no-doubt steroid guy group" because of other reasons - BALCO, McGuire's weird congressional testimony, the Brian McNamee/Andy Pettitte/Jason Grimsely/Search Warrant stuff, the Mitchell Report.

Ortiz might avoid being put in that group because there really isn't that kind of stuff on him. And the media is already treating him MUCH differently than they did Clemens/McGuire/Bonds at the end of their careers. I think that's a hint that he won't be dinged as badly as they were when it comes to post-career reputation and HOF chances.

But, he'll probably lose at least some votes, and with all these guys, the blame for that goes solely to the players and the union for fighting testing for years. It was their choice to leave these determinations about cheating to the media at HOF voters. They have no right to complain about people speculating about this stuff and making judgments based on inferences when they actively fought testing

[jeff061]

I agree he's not in the media/societal "no-doubt" right now, but I think that may change by the time he's eligible.

Both McGuire and Clemens were riding around on everyone's shoulder until a single event flipped them.

[lighthousekeeper]

Aside from the PED issues, it's hard to vote for someone who ranks lower than Jason Giambi on career JAWS for 1B, and below players like Robin Ventura, Bobbie Abreu, Sal Bando, and Andrew Jones in career WAR. His raw stats are very much Fenway inflated.

[tarcone]

Clemens, McGwire and Bonds should be in the HoF.

[SirFozzie]

Doubt this will change anyone's mind, but the Commish says that a significant percentage of those on the 2003 list were false positives and that it shouldn't affect Ortiz's eligibility.

Manfred questions David Ortiz's positive drug test, urges leniency by Hall voters

[CU Tiger]

Here is a crazy thought for you.
Compare Papi and Ken Griffey Jr Offensively for just a moment.

If I told you they have very similar stats but one guy had a few more homers and RBI and the other guy had a slightly higher carer batting average, slightly higher on base % and a few less strikeouts.

That probably wouldn't be very surprising, right?


But you'd probably get which was which reversed. Or at least I did.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Here is a crazy thought for you.
Compare Papi and Ken Griffey Jr Offensively for just a moment.

If I told you they have very similar stats but one guy had a few more homers and RBI and the other guy had a slightly higher carer batting average, slightly higher on base % and a few less strikeouts.

That probably wouldn't be very surprising, right?


But you'd probably get which was which reversed. Or at least I did.

Griffey didn't age well, which is a shame. But he had a massive edge in defensive value over Ortiz, even if most of that was accrued during his first stint in Seattle.

[BillJasper]

First ballot? I don't think he makes it. But, he will eventually. Just too good a hitter, especially in the post-season.

[stevew]

Ortiz played about 1.5 seasons worth of games in the field. If you consider DH to be a position, he is pretty much the gold standard for that. If you think that having to field every day could maybe suppress his numbers by 5-10%, I can see that. He's still easily a hall of famer and I don't especially care for him.

Wasn't it like 2010 when he started very slowly and a narrative began that he was just a few weeks away from being designated?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Marmel

Of course NOT. Well, not until McGuire, Bonds and Sosa are in, among others. Of course, everyone excuses his roid use for some odd reason.

And what do you base your certain knowledge of his steroid use on?

Originally Posted by jeff061

Number 1 give away for steroids seems to be longevity, ability to bounce back from injury and maintaining elite ability at an advanced age.

I think the longevity is tempered by his DH'ing. His body has been breaking down for years, but due to a great eye, approach, and power he's been able to sustain a level at the plate - though no one could've predicted this season. I also don't recall one specific injury that explained those long stretches of decline 5ish years ago - the two semi-plausible explanations I've heard are that he got LASIK surgery at one point (and fwiw, idk what his prescription change was, but when someone goes to 20/15 etc how is that not considered performance enhancing?), and that he was carrying too much weight, which made it hard for him to get in his slight crouch and led to a massive hole in his swing vs lefties.

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

Aside from the PED issues, it's hard to vote for someone who ranks lower than Jason Giambi on career JAWS for 1B, and below players like Robin Ventura, Bobbie Abreu, Sal Bando, and Andrew Jones in career WAR. His raw stats are very much Fenway inflated.

I've always thought that WAR unnecessarily punishes DH's, especially with the stats showing that DH'ing doesn't make most players better hitters. With advances in tracking technology I'm not even that big a fan of positional adjustments at all. Having a bad fielder produces an obvious negative effect, but punishing someone because they don't have any chances to make good or bad plays seems weird.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I've always thought that WAR unnecessarily punishes DH's, especially with the stats showing that DH'ing doesn't make most players better hitters. With advances in tracking technology I'm not even that big a fan of positional adjustments at all. Having a bad fielder produces an obvious negative effect, but punishing someone because they don't have any chances to make good or bad plays seems weird.

I think the issue is that you generally assume a player is put at DH because he's not good enough to handle the easiest of the position spots (1B, LF) and would be even worse defensively than whoever is playing those positions for that team, i.e. they probably would have very little positive defensive value if not actually being a negative. If we assign some level of downgrade to the overall value of a player like Nelson Cruz because he's a poor RF, shouldn't we assume the same level of downgrade if he were put at DH?

And I say this as a huge fan of Edgar Martinez who I believe should be in the Hall.

[General Mike]

I think he deserves it, but I think he will probably get punished for the Mitchell report and there have been other players who had the PED speculation around that him, that had to wait.

[tarcone]

You know what? Im tired of the "He is a cheater, keep him out" stuff. Major leaguers have been taking PEDs forever. Or throwing spit balls. Or loading bats. Or, or, or.

If baseball truly was concerned about PEDs (They werent), they would have been harder, sooner. McGwire and Sosa absolutely saved baseball. And everyone connected to baseball was happy to see it.

PEDs werne tagainst the rules. But now its a big thing. They helped save the sport. But now they are the worst thing since the devil.

[molson]

Originally Posted by General Mike

I think he deserves it, but I think he will probably get punished for the Mitchell report and there have been other players who had the PED speculation around that him, that had to wait.

Ortiz wasn't mentioned in the Mitchell report. The suspicion comes from that list of names that tested positive in 2003 - but we don't know what he tested for, if it was a banned substance, or if he was one of the reported 10% or so that had false positives.

The only other recent hall-of-fame candidate on that list that didn't have other off-field indicators of guilt (like Bonds, etc.) was Pedro Martinez. The HOF voters didn't seem to care about that. There's more steroids talk with Ortiz than Pedro, but it's still way less than the guys who have been kept out on that basis.

[Marmel]

Originally Posted by molson

but we don't know what he tested for, if it was a banned substance, or if he was one of the reported 10% or so that had false positives.

David said he would get to the bottom of this and let us know. I'm still waiting.

I don't care if they let all the roid users in or keep them all out. But Ortiz is a steroid user (unless you are a Sox fan, then there are so many questions just like all the Pats cheating was just so circumstantial so how can we be sure OMG??!)