Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

[Chip Douglass]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

I'll be one of Beltre's loudest supporters until he gets in.

He debuted really young (19, with the Dodgers, sigh), so he has a decent chance at getting 3,000 hits if he continues to confound Father Time.

[Chip Douglass]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

I might be dead by the time A-Rod gets inducted. He's alienated that many people.

Ortiz is probably less obvious a HOFer than I've previously passed him off as because of the DH factor (it's a label that hurts) + the 2003 PED list outing (funny how that was less of a story than A-Rod's positive test, though), so he'll have to fight off some sticklers. He basically did everything every sportswriter loves though and I think he'll get in, even if he shouldn't.

[redsrule]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

If Edgar Martinez doesn't get in Ortiz definitely shouldn't.

Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk

[TheMatrix31]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Ortiz needs to get in despite numbers and all that because of his presence on 3 World Series-winning teams and what he's done in the playoffs to get there. Oh by the way, for freakin' Boston of all places.

As much as I hate his guts, the dude is the definition of "fame." I couldn't care less if he's only a DH.

Of course, my definition of who deserves to be in the HOF is different than just about everyone else's. Pretty hard to articulate my "criteria." It's a combination of feel and sense, ability, achievement, prominence, importance, and statistics.

And I think Edgar Martinez should have long been in.

[redsox4evur]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Ortiz needs to get in despite numbers and all that because of his presence on 3 World Series-winning teams and what he's done in the playoffs to get there. Oh by the way, for freakin' Boston of all places.

As much as I hate his guts, the dude is the definition of "fame." I couldn't care less if he's only a DH.

Of course, my definition of who deserves to be in the HOF is different than just about everyone else's. Pretty hard to articulate my "criteria." It's a combination of feel and sense, ability, achievement, prominence, importance, and statistics.

And I think Edgar Martinez should have long been in.

Ortiz should definitely get in. And not just because I am a Red Sox fan. Look at his performance in the playoffs the years we won a championship. Who can forget that 2004 ALCS. He 2 game winning HRs in the SAME day off the most dominant closer in MLB history. In the 2013 WS he hit .480. He is the epitome of a clutch baseball player.

Others that should get in right now: A-Rod, Beltre, Ichiro, Pujols are the locks. I am up in the air on Hernandez. Maybe in a couple of more years he is a lock but not right now. Trout, Kershaw, Kimbrel, Goldschmidt, and Cutch need to keep up their production and they are in for me as well.

[Chip Douglass]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Yeah, sorry, but the criteria should be tougher than having a lot of famous moments for the Boston Red Sox. Being a Hall of Fame player in October counts for something, but so does being a Hall of Fame player from April through September. Ortiz wasn't that guy.

Being a DH absolutely matters since he's not taking the field (and in Ortiz's case, forcing the two Ramirezes to trot out to LF when they were better off as DHs). The standards are necessarily higher because you basically have to be one of the greatest hitters of all-time to be a HOF DH. Ortiz has a career 137 wRC+, which is a very good number, but not good enough to outweigh the massive negative positional adjustment that DHs deserve. For comparison, Edgar Martinez's career wRC+ is 147; Frank Thomas' career wRC+ is 154.

Some people take the DH penalty too far and refuse to vote for them at all, which is what I was getting at. There's no case to be made against Frank Thomas, for example, but 16.3% of the voters didn't cast a ballot for him. A lot of the voters think in terms of "labels" and the DH is a bad label to have.

Both of you hit on the head why he's getting in though. He might be the easiest narrative candidate in modern MLB history, minus Jeter.

[lhslancers]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Pujols, Ichiro, and Miguel Cabrera are the only guys I can think of who, if they didn't play another game, would be no-doubt HOFers. Ortiz will have to fight off some sticklers, but I think he gets in too (bleh).

And I think you need at least 10 seasons under your belt to make the ballot, so Trout, Kershaw, Posey, etc. technically wouldn't be eligible if MLB disbanded tomorrow, although they're obviously well on their way. In Kershaw's case, he could hang around as a role player for the next few years, retire, and still get in based on the Koufax precedent.

How many hits would Ichiro have if he had played his entire career in The States?

[redsox4evur]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Chip he is also going to hit the 500 HR plateau next year. He doesn't have a great average will give you that. But he still has the HR count. And according to Baseball ref's similarity scores he is the same company as Bagwell, McCovey.

[redsox4evur]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

How many hits would Ichiro have if he had played his entire career in The States?

He would have been close to Rose depending on what age he debuts.

[dubcity]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

If Carlos Delgado can't get in, I wouldn't put in Ortiz. That's just me.

[Speedy]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

ARod is a slam dunk. Beltre should absolutely get in as well.

I'll bet Alex doesn't get over 50%.

[redsox4evur]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

I'll bet Alex doesn't get over 50%.

Without the steroids he is a lock, no doubt, first ballot HOFer. Also they are eliminating a lot of the older voters with the new rule where you have to have been covering the sport actively in the past 10 years. So that could help the cases of Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, and A-Rod.

[lhslancers]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Pujols, Ichiro, and Miguel Cabrera are the only guys I can think of who, if they didn't play another game, would be no-doubt HOFers. Ortiz will have to fight off some sticklers, but I think he gets in too (bleh).

And I think you need at least 10 seasons under your belt to make the ballot, so Trout, Kershaw, Posey, etc. technically wouldn't be eligible if MLB disbanded tomorrow, although they're obviously well on their way. In Kershaw's case, he could hang around as a role player for the next few years, retire, and still get in based on the Koufax precedent.

The difference is Koufax finished strong after he figured it all out. In your scenario Kershaw came out of the gate quick and became mediocre. I don't think that works for a HOF vote.

[Chip Douglass]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Chip he is also going to hit the 500 HR plateau next year. He doesn't have a great average will give you that. But he still has the HR count. And according to Baseball ref's similarity scores he is the same company as Bagwell, McCovey.

The 500 HR mark is part of the narrative point I made. "Hit a lot of home runs in a big city" + "clutch!!!!" + "ending the curse and 2 other championships" = easy-to-tell baseball story.

And Ortiz isn't Jeff Bagwell. Bagwell was a better hitter and added value with the glove and on the basepaths (200+ stolen bases in his career, which is pretty shocking). A Bagwell comparison might be more enlightening with respect to PEDs, since Bagwell has far fewer links to PEDs than Ortiz does and Bagwell's getting destroyed for it.

Baseball-reference's similarity scores once compared Jay Bruce to Barry Bonds. Baseball-reference is great, but the similarity scores thing isn't so great.

[dubcity]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Without the steroids he is a lock, no doubt, first ballot HOFer. Also they are eliminating a lot of the older voters with the new rule where you have to have been covering the sport actively in the past 10 years. So that could help the cases of Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, and A-Rod.

I would just put all of the major PED guys in one special class, but don't do any speeches.