Is David Ortiz a future Hall of Famer?

[FedEx227]

Between the moral judgements, first ballot nonsense, and two different generations using two sets of statistical criteria, I honestly dont know what constitutes a HOF player anymore.

I know a great player when I see one. Ortiz was a great player who produced a bunch of memorable and impactful moments in pennant races & the post season. I kinda feel like Brad Pitt in Moneyball when Jonah Hill doesnt want him to trade Carlos Pena, but admits they would win more games with Hatteberg. "Then what are even talking about here?"

It all depends. As I said, outside of the perception/coverage and postseason performances David Ortiz isn't significantly better than Carlos Delgado.

Player A: .280/.383/.546, 138 OPS+, 40.4 career WAR/32.2 7yr-peak WAR
Player B: .285/.380/.547, 138 OPS+, 36.4 career WAR/30.4 7yr-peak WAR

A is Delgado, B is Ortiz. Delgado had a better peak and a better career if you include value statistics. Are you in a hurry to throw Delgado in? I know I'm not.

So then it becomes a perception and postseason thing. Dude had some really historically good postseasons but he's had some shitty ones too. How heavily do you weigh his good ones and how much weight does his 2004 (amazing) run carry?

Ortiz gets a bump over the Delgado's of the world because he played for the Red Sox, plain and simple. He was covered a lot more, he was talked about a lot more and he's all over everything you see about the Red Sox breaking the curse. Is it entirely fair? Probably not, but I would not be surprised if at the end of the day, Ortiz is in there. Even with the positive PED test (which is worse than guys never proven guilty somehow).

For me, he's not in. But I'm a stat-hall guy. If Ortiz is in, you open it up for a lot of other guys. The Mark Teixieras of the world are no doubt worthy if Ortiz is, Konerko should be there. Berkman, Helton. If you're a legacy and history of the game with a little bit of statistics, then he's a slam dunk. He's historically significant albeit, you can't deny that. I just don't feel he's statistically significant.

 

[Slateman]

I don't know why, but I think he gets in. No necessarily because he deserves it, but because he's so beloved by fans and writers. And I think he has a monster year this year and next year, followed by two average to above average years and gets to 500 home runs.

 

[ssags11]

I don't think he belongs and I am a life long Sox fan. Some of you have summed it up for me already, his stats are good but they are not HoF worthy stats. Best comparison is Edgar Martinez and if Edgar is being snubbed how can Ortiz make it in? They are very similar with the exception Edgar has the much better better stats. Both are well liked around the league by the players and media, both have memorable/heroic playoff games they are known for but again Edgar beats him in every meaningful stats.

One big knock against Ortiz is when you breakdown Edgar's stats against the best pitchers of the game during his playing days, like Clemens, Stewert, Rivera, Eckersley,Wells and a few others. Edgar absolutely owned all those pitchers which is a good argument that Edgar was/is clearly the better hitter too.

No way does Ortiz make it in or should make it anyhow.

 

[Len B]

David Ortiz getting in ahead of me?

 

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I'd vote for a guy like Todd Helton without hesitation.

And I would consider voting for Delgado. But to me what separates Ortiz from Delgado is the postseason/legacy/pennant race stuff. He's had multiple legendary moments. Is it fair that Delgado wasnt in those positions like Ortiz was? Nope. But hey, too bad. I cant do anything about that. On the flip side of that, if Ortiz was Nick Swisher in the postseason, I would probably downgrade him.

Im an easy marker. It stopped being Hall of Immortals decades ago. When I take my grandkids in 30 years it wont bother me that some of the plaques read Billy Williams or Tony Perez or Ron Santo or David Ortiz. It'll bother me more that there wont be plaques for Roger Clemens or Barry Bonds or Mike Piazza or Pete Rose or Tim Raines or Joe Jackson.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

When did this become Ortiz vs Edgar Martinez? Its a disgrace Martinez will likely never make it.

And just knock the fucking thing down when Manny gets snubbed.

 

[ssags11]

When did this become Ortiz vs Edgar Martinez? Its a disgrace Martinez will likely never make it.

And just knock the fucking thing down when Manny gets snubbed.

So you're saying cheaters should be put in with the greats that played the game clean? That's not a hall I want to go to.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

So you're saying cheaters should be put in with the greats that played the game clean? That's not a hall I want to go to.

For the most part I stopped caring about PED's a long time ago. It was too much of an epidemic to keep them all out. Palmeiro, Bonds, Clemens, put them all in.

fwiw, I dont think the game is clean now. And it likely never will be. And I dont really care all that much, tbh.

 

[Goober]

I think Fedex and Senser have given some good comparisons, if Edgar Martinez isn't a Hall of Fame player then there's simply no way Ortiz is deserving. Another player on the ballot that I look at to judge Ortiz's HOF potential is Fred McGriff. Besides the obvious difference that McGriff played the field his entire career and wasn't a terrible base runner, the two players are very similar.

Now as far as counting stats go, McGriff has Ortiz beat by a longshot (outside of doubles). Ortiz should finish his career well behind McGriff in career totals for almost every counting category, 1B, 3B, HR, RBI, R, Steals, WAR. Ortiz's only advantage is in doubles. And the difference in WAR is substantial, still over 20 wins, with Ortiz coming to the end of his career. McGriff's peak years were also better then Ortiz's.

Ortiz had some great postseasons, but McGriff was no slouch either. Winning, a World Series of his own, McGriff doesn't have as many post season at bats as Ortiz, but I would argue his numbers were better.

Fred McGriff: .303/.385/.532 10 HRs
David Ortiz: ..283/.388/.520 12 HRs

I'm of the belief that Fred McGriff is not a Hall of Fame player, and with both he and Edgar Martinez both substantially better then Ortiz, and yet outside of the Hall, I don't see an argument for Ortiz (unless you're relying on the team he played for, and the significance of those WS wins). An impressive postseason can add to a player's HOF consideration, but it shouldn't be the biggest factor.

 

[Len B]

When did this become Ortiz vs Edgar Martinez?

Your thread title is why it came this way. Edgar deserves in before Ortiz, and if he's struggling to get in then there's really no way Ortiz can get in.

 

[FirstTimer]

Just gonna throw it out there Ortiz never for sure failed a test. He's on that 2003 list that no one has ever seen and no one knows for sure who is on it or what the positive tests are for.

 

[ThomasTomasz]

Between the moral judgements, first ballot nonsense, and two different generations using two sets of statistical criteria, I honestly dont know what constitutes a HOF player anymore.

I know a great player when I see one. Ortiz was a great player who produced a bunch of memorable and impactful moments in pennant races & the post season. I kinda feel like Brad Pitt in Moneyball when Jonah Hill doesnt want him to trade Carlos Pena, but admits they would win more games with Hatteberg. "Then what are even talking about here?"

Ortiz put up some damn good stats going to Boston from Minnesota, and was an impact player in the playoffs. It's not like he's a guy who was above average in the season, and found a second gear in the playoff. Ortiz is still one of the most feared hitters in baseball when he's on the field. I thought he was on the decline after 2010, and he's only improved since then.

It's also a shame that such a great hitter like Edgar Martinez isn't in yet. Who cares that he primarily was a DH? We let Ozzie Smith into the HOF for being a great defensive player, and only getting by with the bat, the exact opposite of Martinez.

 

[FedEx227]

Just gonna throw it out there Ortiz never for sure failed a test. He's on that 2003 list that no one has ever seen and no one knows for sure who is on it or what the positive tests are for.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/07/30/ortiz.steroids/index.html No, we do know for sure, because...he...said it was true and that he failed. Unless we arguing the semantics of him saying he doesn't know how or why.

In a statement he released Thursday afternoon, Red Sox slugger David Ortiz acknowledged that a New York Times report that said he was one of the players to have tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs in 2003 was accurate.

"I have already contacted the Players Association to confirm if this report is true. I have just been told that the report is true," Ortiz's statement read in part. "Based on the way I have lived my life, I am surprised to learn I tested positive."

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/07/30/ortiz.steroids/index.html#ixzz2I0jGJGhy

I remember you were saying McGwire saying he did it should count against him, so yeah, it counts against Ortiz. He admitted to it. I don't think it should matter, but if it does for guys like Bonds and Clemens, it especially should for Ortiz.

With that said, on a purely statistical level, there's far too many guys that should get in before Ortiz does.

 

[FedEx227]

So you're saying cheaters should be put in with the greats that played the game clean? That's not a hall I want to go to.

Yeah, I'd hate to have guys that stole signs in my Hall of Fame. That's what you're talking about, right?

 

[FirstTimer]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/07/30/ortiz.steroids/index.html No, we do know for sure, because...he...said it was true and that he failed. Unless we arguing the semantics of him saying he doesn't know how or why.



I remember you were saying McGwire saying he did it should count against him, so yeah, it counts against Ortiz. He admitted to it. I don't think it should matter, but if it does for guys like Bonds and Clemens, it especially should for Ortiz.

With that said, on a purely statistical level, there's far too many guys that should get in before Ortiz does.

That's kind of the point, no one knows who is on the list or what the positive tests are for. Mac admitting to using anabolic steroids =\= to Ortiz testing positive despite major issues with that 2003 list and not even knowing what it was for. Reasonable people can look at tainted supplement tests etc different than getting stuck in the ass


Ortiz saying I was told I was on the list doesn't mean a shit load.

 

[FirstTimer]

Also Ortiz is really borderline to me. I lean towards no.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I guess the problem i'm having with this thread is that you guys keep comparing Ortiz with players that I also think are HOF worthy. I would vote for people like Todd Helton & Edgar Martinez without hesitation, so these comparisons don't sway me. And unlike most (if not all) of these players that Ortiz compares favorably with, Ortiz is still playing, and still playing at a high level, so his book isn't even written yet.

The other issue is I never said I think he'll be a HOF'er. I said that I think he should be. I have no idea who is going to get into the Hall of Fame anymore. I can't get a read on these dipshit writers after the last few years. They aren't voting for all time greats like Jeff Bagwell or Mike Piazza, so I mean, seriously, what's the point? Meanwhile, people like Jack Morris & Alan Trammell, who were good players and never considered great when they were playing, get equal support. I have no idea what these goofs are thinking.

 

[Goober]

I guess the problem i'm having with this thread is that you guys keep comparing Ortiz with players that I also think are HOF worthy. I would vote for people like Todd Helton & Edgar Martinez without hesitation, so these comparisons don't sway me. And unlike most (if not all) of these players that Ortiz compares favorably with, Ortiz is still playing, and still playing at a high level, so his book isn't even written yet.

The other issue is I never said I think he'll be a HOF'er. I said that I think he should be. I have no idea who is going to get into the Hall of Fame anymore. I can't get a read on these dipshit writers after the last few years. They aren't voting for all time greats like Jeff Bagwell or Mike Piazza, so I mean, seriously, what's the point? Meanwhile, people like Jack Morris & Alan Trammell, who were good players and never considered great when they were playing, get equal support. I have no idea what these goofs are thinking.

I'd have a hard time even considering David Ortiz one of the best players in baseball, even the years he received MVP votes, let alone an all time great. While he has stayed consistently good, for a long time, his peak was short and it wasn't that high of a peak. And one could argue he wasn't even the best DH in the AL at that time.

Player A 2005-2007 .306/.418/.620 OPS+ 163
Player B 2004-2006 .308/.419/.611 OPS+ 170

Player B is Travis Hafner. I'm not arguing that Hafner was better at anytime, but the numbers are certainly close. Obviously Hafner's fell off quickly while Ortiz has maintained some value over a long period. But outside of those three years David Ortiz has never played at a Hall of Fame level. Is that enough of a peak for you warner? If so I think there's a lot of other players who need to be added to your HOF list.

 

[Villain]

Hafner was the shit. I kinda miss that.

 

[MVPete]

I was under the impression that Ortiz never popped up on any list which FT verified but what fed is saying and the fact that nobody trusts those Dominican boys he's going to be looked at as a user.