Should DH be Elected to HOF?

[zahavasdad]

Do you think DH's especially David Ortiz be elected to the hall of Fame?

If Oritiz was a 1B's, no question but since he doesnt play the field , does he belong there

If Ortiz isnt HOF material, could a DH ever be a HOFer?

[dl4060]

If a DH is good enough with his bat to warrant election, he belongs. I do not see an intelligent reason why DH's should be disqualified. If Frank Thomas had played his entire career as a DH he would still be a first ballot guy. Same with Mcgwire and Bonds, ignoring the obvious elephant in the room with those two.

[Westlake]

Even if Ortiz played 1B, I don't think he would be a HOFer yet. If he plays at the level he has been until he's about 36, then I'd view him as worthy.

This also has nothing to do with him being a DH or not. I just dont think he has played long enough at this high level to warrant induction.

[jjpm74]

If a DH manages to be an invaluable member of several World Series teams or puts up numbers along the lines of someone like Paul Molitor, I support them as HOFers. Borderline guys like Edgar Martinez who were very good with a bat but didn't field a position I don't support for the hall. If Ortiz continues to have the kind of impact he's had over the past several seasons, he belongs there. If he falls apart this year or next year, he doesn't.

[OleMissCub]

I believe I'm in a fringe minority here, but I just think a baseball player needs to play both sides of the game.

[KCGHOST]

Do we really care that guys like Manny Ramirez man a defensive position?? If a guy can really rake and does it long enough we will elect him to the HoF.

As for Ortiz he is not really very close to the HoF despite five monster seasons in Boston. His counting numbers are terrible. He needs another five seasons like he just had. I suppose there are those that will want to give him extra credit for his post-season play but I don't. You need teammates to get to the post-season and he had nothing to do with that. And his performance in the post-season has been basically what he has done in the regular season (which, of course, is awfully good).

[dl4060]

If a DH manages to be an invaluable member of several World Series teams.

Really should not be a factor in determining who goes to the hall as anything other than a tie-breaker.

[jjpm74]

Really should not be a factor in determining who goes to the hall as anything other than a tie-breaker.

A hypothetical here, but if someone were to win three World Series MVPs as a DH and played an integral role in getting that team to the World Series those years but had an otherwise very good career but fell a little short of the traditional HOF numbers, you don't think that person would deserve a look?

World Series play and being a big contributor on World Series teams are what got Kirby Puckett into the Hall of Fame where his comparable Don Mattingly's been left sitting on the bench to this point.

[zahavasdad]

I am NOT a Sox fan, but I doubt the Sox would have been 2 time World Series Champ without Ortiz and last year the only reason they were competitive was because of Ortiz.

I cannot deny Ortiz is currently one of the best players in Baseball especially in the clutch.

[Brian McKenna]

Refresh my memory - why did Mattingly retire at age 34?

[dgarza]

I believe I'm in a fringe minority here, but I just think a baseball player needs to play both sides of the game.
So much for AL pitchers...

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Do we really care that guys like Manny Ramirez man a defensive position?? If a guy can really rake and does it long enough we will elect him to the HoF.

As for Ortiz he is not really very close to the HoF despite five monster seasons in Boston. His counting numbers are terrible. He needs another five seasons like he just had. I suppose there are those that will want to give him extra credit for his post-season play but I don't. You need teammates to get to the post-season and he had nothing to do with that. And his performance in the post-season has been basically what he has done in the regular season (which, of course, is awfully good).

Ortiz has had two careers.

Twins seasons (455 G)
.266/.348/.461, 107 OPS+

Red Sox seasons (737 G)
.302/.402/.612, 156 OPS+

I guess it depends how he ages. From his appearance it doesn't seem that Ortiz takes physical conditioning very seriously.

[jjpm74]

Refresh my memory - why did Mattingly retire at age 34?

Debilitating back problems.

[Westlake]

I guess it depends how he ages. From his appearance it doesn't seem that Ortiz takes physical conditioning very seriously.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1122609&postcount=27

[dgarza]

If a DH manages to be an invaluable member of several World Series teams or puts up numbers along the lines of someone like Paul Molitor, I support them as HOFers.
OK, so you support great DHs for the Hall, accepting that they are DHs, not fielders.

Borderline guys like Edgar Martinez who were very good with a bat but didn't field a position I don't support for the hall.
But that's the definition of a DH, a position you just said you could support. Now you are saying you can't support a DH, a player with a great bat and no glove. Martinez did not play quite as long as Molitor, but some of his numbers are similar to Molitor's, some may be even better.

If Ortiz continues to have the kind of impact he's had over the past several seasons, he belongs there. If he falls apart this year or next year, he doesn't.So it all depends on making the World Series?

[OleMissCub]

So much for AL pitchers...

I have a problem with pitchers not getting up to the plate as well. I think pitchers should have to hit and hitters should have to field a position.

And yes, I know what's coming...."so do you think pitchers that have pitched primarily in the AL since the DH rule shouldn't be in the HOF?"

Of course they should be in the HOF if they are good enough. But in my opinion the standard for a DH getting in the HOF should be WAY high. Frank Thomas is the only guy I can think of right now. Edgar is a good candidate, but I have him falling short.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I have a problem with pitchers not getting up to the plate as well. I think pitchers should have to hit and hitters should have to field a position.

And yes, I know what's coming...."so do you think pitchers that have pitched primarily in the AL since the DH rule shouldn't be in the HOF?"

Of course they should be in the HOF if they are good enough. But in my opinion the standard for a DH getting in the HOF should be WAY high. Frank Thomas is the only guy I can think of right now. Edgar is a good candidate, but I have him falling short.

I'm with you on this one. A DH should have dominant numbers. I'd vore for Thomas and Martinez.

[jjpm74]

OK, so you support great DHs for the Hall, accepting that they are DHs, not fielders.


But that's the definition of a DH, a position you just said you could support. Now you are saying you can't support a DH, a player with a great bat and no glove. Martinez did not play quite as long as Molitor, but some of his numbers are similar to Molitor's, some may be even better.

So it all depends on making the World Series?

To make it more clear, I'd support a DH if they hit a huge milestone (3000 hits, 2000 RBIs, 2000 Runs), won several MVP awards or played a huge role on a dynastic ball club (as in being considered the best hitter on their team during such a stretch). Otherwise I do not support them as candidates. Edgar Martinez did none of these things. Martinez had 1000 less hits than Molitor even though he only played 3 less seasons than him. Molitor has Martinez beat in Black Ink, Gray Ink, HOF Monitor and HOF standards. What makes them similar other than both being DHs?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1122609&postcount=27

Wow! I guess Ortiz has made a drastic change in diet. He looks great, much thinner but still has those big guns. I wonder if he may play more 1B this season? :shrug:

[dgarza]

Probably at least helf corner OFers and 1Bmen get in on bat alone. Why kid ourselves and think they get support credit for fielding? Why act patronizing towards the DH and give RFers a pass?

Martinez was not a good 3Bman, but was Ortiz any better a 1Bman? Ortiz would look worse than Martinez if he had ever played 3B.

DHs should not be excluded from the Hall.

[DoubleX]

Probably at least helf corner OFers and 1Bmen get in on bat alone. Why kid ourselves and think they get support credit for fielding? Why act patronizing towards the DH and give RFers a pass?

Because there is still something to be said about going out and playing in the field everyday, instead of sitting on the bench and doing nothing but concentrate on hitting. Playing a corner OF or 1B might not be as demanding as other positions, but going out there everyday over the course of the season does wear down on you, increase the risk for injury, and gives you something else to think about other than hitting. I've said before that there have been too many great hitters in history before the DH that saw their careers end by their mid 30s because they no longer had value in the field, even at 1B. Guys like Mickey Mantle, Eddie Mathews, Hank Greenberg, Orlando Cepeda, Ralph Kiner, Frank Howard, come to mind as great hitters that could have prolonged their careers and enhanced their production if they were able to get in the lineup as a DH.

Take Edgar Martinez for example, with his injuries and poor defense, what would his career have been like in a DHless league? I don't think he would have had as long or as productive a career as he did, and would probably have been more like Ted Kluszewski - a good hitter, who saw his career end early because injuries and defensive ineptitude kept him out of the lineup. How many players of yesteryear may have had HoF caliber careers if they could have DH'd like Martinez? I think that's a fair question to ask because when we're talking about the Hall, we're talking about players through the ages, so if a modern player is afforded an advantage that was a big factor in his Hall of Fame candidacy that players of earlier generations were not, I think that should very much be factored in.

This all being said, I would not say that a DH should not be in the Hall per se, but I do think they should be held to a very high standard of offensive output. This is because a DH isn't doing anything different from anyone else - everyone else hits and plays the field, a DH just hits, so they should be better at hitting than position players. Ortiz has been around that level for the past few years, and he can sustain it for say a 10-12 year stretch, I think he'll have a pretty good argument. So he still has a way to go, and I have a feeling his size will catch up to him eventually, as historically, players that big tend not to age well (Mo Vaughn and Cecil Fielder being recent examples - of course, Ortiz has an advantage over them in that he can save his back, legs, and knees some trouble by not playing the field regularly as they did).

[dgarza]

To make it more clear, I'd support a DH if they hit a huge milestone (3000 hits, 2000 RBIs, 2000 Runs), won several MVP awards or played a huge role on a dynastic ball club (as in being considered the best hitter on their team during such a stretch). Otherwise I do not support them as candidates. Edgar Martinez did none of these things. Martinez had 1000 less hits than Molitor even though he only played 3 less seasons than him. Molitor has Martinez beat in Black Ink, Gray Ink, HOF Monitor and HOF standards. What makes them similar other than both being DHs?
They both hit for similar AVG.
Of course, Martinez had a lot more power than Molitor.

Although the Red Sox won it all and the Mariners didn't, don't forget that Martinez was all the #1-#2 bat as much a Ortiz was (neither was always a #1 man). The Mariners were quite the team to beat for 5-7 years in the late 90s / early 2000s.

[dgarza]

Because there is still something to be said about going out and playing in the field everyday, instead of sitting on the bench and doing nothing but concentrate on hitting. Playing a corner OF or 1B might not be as demanding as other positions, but going out there everyday over the course of the season does wear down on you, increase the risk for injury, and gives you something else to think about other than hitting.
While this is all true, I don't think it's really a factor of consideration in player support for the Hall generally. Right or wrong, the BBWAA mostly do not consider it. That's why I think it would almost be hypocritical if they only strongly considered that factor for the DH.

[Westlake]

Wow! I guess Ortiz has made a drastic change in diet. He looks great, much thinner but still has those big guns. I wonder if he may play more 1B this season? :shrug:

Maybe they would try him out a little more on another team lacking at 1B, but Youkilis is pretty set there. No real reason to. You're right though, he looks really in shape. Very surprising.

[DoubleX]

While this is all true, I don't think it's really a factor of consideration in player support for the Hall generally. Right or wrong, the BBWAA mostly do not consider it. That's why I think it would almost be hypocritical if they only strongly considered that factor for the DH.

I wasn't discussing from how the BBWAA weighs the DH, just giving my own thoughts on how I would treat the DH if I voted. It's tough to gauge so far how the BBWAA treats DHs. The only viable DH candidate, Molitor, had those shiny milestones that the voters like, so I don't really think they were forced to consider the DH issue then. The next best is Harold Baines, who has been clinging on to the ballot. Edgar Martinez will be the real test, and I suspect that being a DH will hold him back. I think he might eventually get elected, but it could take some time. Ortiz, if he has a few more years, I think may have a better chance with the BBWAA than Martinez, even if Martinez had the better career. Ortiz really has the subjective Fame elements going for him, being such a prominent hitter and figure for the Red Sox on the way to at least two championship. Martinez, while well respected throughout baseball, was more a hidden talent, in he never got as much attention and hype as Ortiz has been getting.

Frank Thomas may also pose an interesting case. I wouldn't be surprised if Thomas takes a year or two to get elected, and I think part of that could have to do with all the time he spent at DH. Though, it may also have to do with the fact that Thomas' greatness as a hitter never seemed to be fully appreciated, and some voters may not be overly impressed with his counting numbers on account of the "steroids era."

[dgarza]

It's tough to gauge so far how the BBWAA treats DHs. The only viable DH candidate, Molitor, had those shiny milestones that the voters like, so I don't really think they were forced to consider the DH issue then. The next best is Harold Baines, who has been clinging on to the ballot. Edgar Martinez will be the real test, and I suspect that being a DH will hold him back.
Right, Martinez will be the real test. It'll be interesting how they deal with him. The writers seem to be holding alot of "negative" aspects of players against them lately. See Belle and McGwire.

[Macker]

If relievers, whose value is vastly overrated, can make the HOF, then why not a DH who bats 140+ games a year?

[leecemark]

--I think Thomas will be the first player make the Hall with the majority of games at DH. The seasons that made him a Hall of Famer were mostly at firstbase though. Molitor is already in , of course, with a plurality of his games at DH. Molitor would not be in without the 3,000 hits though. Ortiz was never at Thomas level, likely won't reach any significant milestones and ever really held a job on defense. The odds would appear to be stacked against him.

[DoubleX]

The writers seem to be holding alot of "negative" aspects of players against them lately. See Belle and McGwire.

That's true, but the writers seem to be punishing character flaws, rather than performance (or in McGwire's case, character flaws related to performance). Martinez is widely considered a high character guy, and I wouldn't be surprised to see some of the perceived "good guys" of this era get some support based on character as a reward. This is going back a while, but I think Ray Schalk greatly benefited from being considered one of the good guys overshadowed by the stain of the Black Sox. Likewise, I wouldn't be surprised if someone like Martinez is rewarded with some support for being a good guy overshadowed by the stain of steroids.

[dgarza]

I wonder how much of being a DH is effecting Jim Rice's case.
He even started off as a DH.

[dl4060]

A hypothetical here, but if someone were to win three World Series MVPs as a DH and played an integral role in getting that team to the World Series those years but had an otherwise very good career but fell a little short of the traditional HOF numbers, you don't think that person would deserve a look?

It depends how far short the numbers are. If they are borderline HOF, I could see the World Series play as being a factor. Otherwise I do not think it should be a factor.


World Series play and being a big contributor on World Series teams are what got Kirby Puckett into the Hall of Fame where his comparable Don Mattingly's been left sitting on the bench to this point.

I don't think Mattingly's lack of WS experience is what has kept him out. I think Mattingly is a tough case because he looked so much like a lock, then played a number of years where he really was not all that good. It might have helped him had his career ended suddenly after 1989, though he would not have had ten years of play. In his case he was hurt, but not hurt to the point where he could no longer play. I don't think great performances in the WS would have put Mattingly in. They might have, but I do not think they should have, and I doubt they would have tipped things in his favor. Had he continued to play at the 84-89 level through say, 93' then had his career abruptly ended by injury, I think he would have gone in easily.

In Puckett's case he was hurt to the point where he could not play anymore. He was still playing at close to an all-star level when this happened, while Mattingly was not.

[dl4060]

To make it more clear, I'd support a DH if they hit a huge milestone (3000 hits, 2000 RBIs, 2000 Runs), won several MVP awards or played a huge role on a dynastic ball club (as in being considered the best hitter on their team during such a stretch). Otherwise I do not support them as candidates. Edgar Martinez did none of these things. Martinez had 1000 less hits than Molitor even though he only played 3 less seasons than him. Molitor has Martinez beat in Black Ink, Gray Ink, HOF Monitor and HOF standards. What makes them similar other than both being DHs?


Martinez was a better player than Molitor, he just did not get to the majors quickly enough. Molitor played 600 more games, so he should have more hits. Martinez had more power, a better batting eye, he was simply a better hitter. His OPS+ was 25 points higher, which is huge. If you gave him 600 more games at the beginning of his career that might be down to the 135-140 range, but still quite a bit above Molitor. I am not putting Molitor down, I would vote him into the hall, I just think Edgar was clearly a better hitter.

[OleMissCub]

Martinez was a better player than Molitor, he just did not get to the majors quickly enough. Molitor played 600 more games, so he should have more hits. Martinez had more power, a better batting eye, he was simply a better hitter. His OPS+ was 25 points higher, which is huge. If you gave him 600 more games at the beginning of his career that might be down to the 135-140 range, but still quite a bit above Molitor. I am not putting Molitor down, I would vote him into the hall, I just think Edgar was clearly a better hitter.

Definitely agree with this. Edgar > Molitor.

Molitor got one of the "magic" numbers, which I think is the main reason he is in.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

--I think Thomas will be the first player make the Hall with the majority of games at DH. The seasons that made him a Hall of Famer were mostly at firstbase though. Molitor is already in , of course, with a plurality of his games at DH. Molitor would not be in without the 3,000 hits though. Ortiz was never at Thomas level, likely won't reach any significant milestones and ever really held a job on defense. The odds would appear to be stacked against him.

I think the past three seasons Ortiz has been a close facsimile to Frank Thomas.

2005-07 Average
.306/.418/.620, 163 OPS+, 45 HR, 134 RBI, 116 R, 40 doubles, 174 H, 113 BB

[leecemark]

--Thomas had an OPS+ better than that each of his first 7 full seasons - 50 points higher in his best season.

[Westlake]

--Thomas had an OPS+ better than that each of his first 7 full seasons - 50 points higher in his best season.

Sure, but what about the other 6? I'd say he's been pretty close to Thomas' level as of late, maybe falling a little short.

[zahavasdad]

Ortiz isnt only about Stats, its about Clutch hitting, He gets the TOUGH RBI's

If there was 2 out in the 8th inning and runners on first and second, Ortiz is the player most likely to get the hit

[leecemark]

Sure, but what about the other 6? I'd say he's been pretty close to Thomas' level as of late, maybe falling a little short.


--Being close to the second half of Thomas career for a few years is not exactly a compelling Hall of Fame case.

[DoubleX]

Sure, but what about the other 6? I'd say he's been pretty close to Thomas' level as of late, maybe falling a little short.

Here's a comparison of Ortiz's last 5 seasons, easily his best, against Thomas best 5 consecutive in terms of OPS+:

Ortiz: 171, 161, 158, 145, 144; 156 Average

Thomas: 211, 181, 179, 177, 174; 185 Average; Thomas also had another 180 season the year before this 5 year period, giving him a six year average of 184.

Then consider this - Thomas' career OPS+ is 157, which is higher than Ortiz's average over just the last 5 years.

So while Ortiz has been great, Thomas was on a totally different level. Plus, Thomas was in the field for most of that period, and I believe that even playing 1B everyday, does have some physical toll, especially compared to DHing everyday.

Anyway, this isn't meant to denigrate Ortiz, because it's obvious he's been great, this is just meant to show that Thomas was on a clearly higher level.

[jjpm74]

Ortiz isnt only about Stats, its about Clutch hitting, He gets the TOUGH RBI's

If there was 2 out in the 8th inning and runners on first and second, Ortiz is the player most likely to get the hit

Ortiz was just another average player before 2003 then someone by the name of Manny Ramirez became his teammate thanks to Ortiz ending up on the Red Sox.

[Westlake]

Here's a comparison of Ortiz's last 5 seasons, easily his best, against Thomas best 5 consecutive in terms of OPS+:

Ortiz: 171, 161, 158, 145, 144; 156 Average

Thomas: 211, 181, 179, 177, 174; 185 Average; Thomas also had another 180 season the year before this 5 year period, giving him a six year average of 184.

Then consider this - Thomas' career OPS+ is 157, which is higher than Ortiz's average over just the last 5 years.

So while Ortiz has been great, Thomas was on a totally different level. Plus, Thomas was in the field for most of that period, and I believe that even playing 1B everyday, does have some physical toll, especially compared to DHing everyday.

Anyway, this isn't meant to denigrate Ortiz, because it's obvious he's been great, this is just meant to show that Thomas was on a clearly higher level.

I wasn't talking about Ortiz's top 5 seasons. I was agreeing with HWR that the last couple of years Ortiz has been near Frank Thomas' level. Not his best season, or his top 3 seasons by OPS+, just near his level. Which I still believe.

Ortiz could go out there and be a butcher in the field too, but there's just no point to it. Frank Thomas sucking in the field does nothing for him in my opinion.

Ortiz was just another average player before 2003 then someone by the name of Manny Ramirez became his teammate thanks to Ortiz ending up on the Red Sox.

Did Ortiz put his hand on Manny's forehead and suck the talent straight out of him?

[dl4060]

Ortiz was just another average player before 2003 then someone by the name of Manny Ramirez became his teammate thanks to Ortiz ending up on the Red Sox.

Do you believe Manny turned Ortiz from an ordinary player into a great one? I don't see how that is a logical conclusion. Ortiz did get much better, but I don't think that has much to do with Manny.

[jjpm74]

Do you believe Manny turned Ortiz from an ordinary player into a great one? I don't see how that is a logical conclusion. Ortiz did get much better, but I don't think that has much to do with Manny.

You don't think being in the same lineup with Manny helped him? His numbers jumped dramatically from 2002 to 2003, If it wasn't Manny, what was it? PEDs?

[jjpm74]

Did Ortiz put his hand on Manny's forehead and suck the talent straight out of him?

Yes, that must be it. It has nothing to do with the fact that pitchers would rather face Ortiz than pitch around him to get to Ramirez or anything.

[dl4060]

Here's a comparison of Ortiz's last 5 seasons, easily his best, against Thomas best 5 consecutive in terms of OPS+:

Ortiz: 171, 161, 158, 145, 144; 156 Average

Thomas: 211, 181, 179, 177, 174; 185 Average; Thomas also had another 180 season the year before this 5 year period, giving him a six year average of 184.

Then consider this - Thomas' career OPS+ is 157, which is higher than Ortiz's average over just the last 5 years.
.

I would not throw the 211 in there without an asterisk. That was a strike year. It does not change the conclusion, it just should be weighted a bit differently. I think David Ortiz has been an absolute monster the last 3 years. I don't think he has quite been as good as Thomas at Frank's best, but how many players have. Not being quite as good as Frank Thomas is not a criticism. Thomas had an amazing peak.

Ortiz really impressed me last year. He was injured, and not able to drive the ball quite the way he had the year before. He adjusted, raised his average 45 points, hit more doubles, and was very possibly the best player in the AL not named Arod. Great players adjust to their surroundings and their conditions, Ortiz did that last year.

[Westlake]

Yes, that must be it. It has nothing to do with the fact that pitchers would rather face Ortiz than pitch around him to get to Ramirez or anything.

Wouldn't that mean he would get more pitches to hit and would be walking LESS, instead of the 332 times he has walked in the last 3 years?

He was pretty good in 2003 when he hit after Manny, and the last time Manny missed time (at the end of this past season), Ortiz hit .318/.455/.716.

[DoubleX]

I wasn't talking about Ortiz's top 5 seasons. I was agreeing with HWR that the last couple of years Ortiz has been near Frank Thomas' level. Not his best season, or his top 3 seasons by OPS+, just near his level. Which I still believe.

You've made a very generalized statement. Ortiz is near Frank Thomas' level at what stage of Thomas' career? If you're going to take Ortiz at his best, it's only fair to take Thomas at his best as well in the comparison, and there is a sizeable gap between Ortiz at his best and Thomas at his best. Now if you're talking about Thomas in some of his lesser peak years, than yeah, Ortiz has been about as good as Thomas was in his lesser peak years, but that's misleading and it's really just picking and choosing what your reference of comparison is. It seems unfair to take Ortiz at his best and then compare him to Thomas at something below his best. Ortiz at peak, which is right now, is just not at Frank Thomas' peak level, and I don't think it's particularly close. That's not a disrespect to Ortiz, it's just how great Thomas was.

Ortiz could go out there and be a butcher in the field too, but there's just no point to it. Frank Thomas sucking in the field does nothing for him in my opinion.

It's not about quality of defense, it's about the wear and tear. Seriously, try just going and playing 1B in slow pitch softball everyday for say just two weeks, and then trying doing the same but DHing. Your body will feel a lot more strain from having to be out and active in the field (and a 1Bman is pretty active), and then just imagine what it would be like to play at the Major League level for six months. There's also a greater risk for injury with just being out in the field (I played with a guy a few years ago that horrificly dislocated his elbow at 1B, and there's what happened to Doug Mientkiewicz as well). Then finally, it gives the player something else to think about other than hitting all day.

I'm sorry, but a person that is paid to do nothing but hit, while everyone else hits and mans a defensive position, just aren't on quite the same footing to me. Because a DH is paid to do nothing but hit, I have higher expectations for them as hitters than I do for position players.

[Westlake]

You've made a very generalized statement. Ortiz is near Frank Thomas' level at what stage of Thomas' career? If you're going to take Ortiz at his best, it's only fair to take Thomas at his best as well in the comparison, and there is a sizeable gap between Ortiz at his best and Thomas at his best. Now if you're talking about Thomas in some of his lesser peak years, than yeah, Ortiz has been about as good as Thomas was in his lesser peak years, but that's misleading and it's really just picking and choosing what your reference of comparison is. It seems unfair to take Ortiz at his best and then compare him to Thomas at something below his best. Ortiz at peak, which is right now, is just not at Frank Thomas' peak level, and I don't think it's particularly close. That's not a disrespect to Ortiz, it's just how great Thomas was.


Yes, you're right, it was a very generalized statement. But I haven't said he was as good as Thomas, just that he is near the same level right now. He, right now, is almost as good as Thomas was, IMO.

It's not about quality of defense, it's about the wear and tear. Seriously, try just going and playing 1B in slow pitch softball everyday for say just two weeks, and then trying doing the same but DHing. Your body will feel a lot more strain from having to be out and active in the field (and a 1Bman is pretty active), and then just imagine what it would be like to play at the Major League level for six months. There's also a greater risk for injury with just being out in the field (I played with a guy a few years ago that horrificly dislocated his elbow at 1B, and there's what happened to Doug Mientkiewicz as well). Then finally, it gives the player something else to think about other than hitting all day.

I'm sorry, but a person that is paid to do nothing but hit, while everyone else hits and mans a defensive position, just aren't on quite the same footing to me. Because a DH is paid to do nothing but hit, I have higher expectations for them as hitters than I do for position players.

That's fine, but I don't agree. Maybe there is a greater risk for injury, but Thomas didn't get injured in the field to make him hit any worse, as far as I know. I've heard this stance from you many times but I just can't agree with it. Crappy defense doesn't do anything for me. I dont expect more from a guy just cause he doesn't have to field.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

--Thomas had an OPS+ better than that each of his first 7 full seasons - 50 points higher in his best season.

That's average over three seasons. For Ortiz:

2005-158
2006-161
2007-171

As for the 50 point season that was a short season. And in five of those seven seasons Thomas' OPS+ was in the 170s. Like I said Ortiz has been a facsimile of Thomas, behind Thomas of course.

[zahavasdad]

Will Frank Thomas be hurt by playing for smaller market teams, he does have HOF numhers

and Papi plays for a big market team and appears on Sports Center almost every night by virture of playing for Boston. Will this help him???

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Will Frank Thomas be hurt by playing for smaller market teams, he does have HOF numhers

and Papi plays for a big market team and appears on Sports Center almost every night by virture of playing for Boston. Will this help him???

Chicago is a "small" market? :shrug:

[zahavasdad]

If you play for the White Sox it is..

If he played for the Cubs, then that would have been different

[dl4060]

You don't think being in the same lineup with Manny helped him? His numbers jumped dramatically from 2002 to 2003, If it wasn't Manny, what was it? PEDs?

Improvement. Players improve. Ortiz had never been given a full shot before. There are a variety of factors here, but Manny will not simply transform an ordinary hitter into a great one. Ortiz was someone who had great potential, but had not reached it due to weaknesses against lefties. Ortiz put up some terrific numbers in the minors, he just never got a full shot in Minnesota.

One theory I have heard regarding Ortiz is that he had a very acute weakness in Minnesota with inside fastballs above his hands from lefties. At Fenway, he learned to go the other way with these pitches. Eventually this gave him the confidence that he could handle these pitches, and he learned to deal with them in away parks as well. That Ortiz was able to adjust his batting style last year given his injuries and inability to drive the ball speaks to that, he went from hitting .287 with 54 bombs to .332 with 35. To me, that shows an ability to adjust. Sometimes an approach can really take care of an acute weakness and help someone launch. Sammy Sosa improved his plate discipline in 1998 and became a monster. Although something else may have been going on there, he clearly became a more disciplined hitter.

Or, it could be PED's, who knows. I do not believe, however, that simply hitting near someone will change a player from a 110 OPS+ guy to a 150 OPS+ guy. That is simply too much of an improvement. I think if Manny left Ortiz would still be great. He might lose a bit, but he already gets walked over 110 times a season.

There are players out there who need a shot. Some will get it, some won't. Brian Giles needed to leave Cleveland to get a full shot, and he was a monster when he did. He hit better in a full season than any of his partial season performances would indicate.

Sometimes guys just have weaknesses which can be exploited. If they learn to deal with those, they improve, if they don't, they stagnate. Ortiz improved, or maybe juiced, who knows.

[DoubleX]

That's fine, but I don't agree. Maybe there is a greater risk for injury, but Thomas didn't get injured in the field to make him hit any worse, as far as I know. I've heard this stance from you many times but I just can't agree with it. Crappy defense doesn't do anything for me. I dont expect more from a guy just cause he doesn't have to field.

If you're paying a guy to do nothing but hit, you don't think it's fair to expect him to be a better hitter than positional players? His one and only purpose in the game is to hit, nothing else. So I'd say given that unique singular purpose, higher expectations, even if slight, are warranted.

And if you don't agree with me saying that playing in the field everyday will cause wear and tear, than I strongly suggest you try what I suggested, even if just on slow pitch softball level - go and play 1B everyday for a few weeks and see how you feel and compare it so how you feel if DHing everyday. Tell me if the bat feels a little heavier. If the back is a little more sore. If the knees creak a little more. Playing the field over the course of an entire Major League season, takes a toll that doesn't happen when you're sitting on the bench the vast majority of the time. It's not about defense in this regard, it's just about wearing down. How do you think Ortiz's knees and back would hold up with his weight if he had to play the field everyday for the entire season? He was having troubles last year just DHing. Playing 1B and DHing is just not the same at all in terms of the strain on the body over the course of the season. On the flipside, perhaps Thomas would have had even better seasons in his prime if he were predominantly DHing instead of playing in the field.

[Westlake]

If you're paying a guy to do nothing but hit, you don't think it's fair to expect him to be a better hitter than positional players?

And if you don't agree with me saying that playing in the field everyday will cause wear and tear, than I strongly suggest you try what I suggested, even if just on slow pitch softball level - go and play 1B everyday for a few weeks and see how you feel and compare it so how you feel if DHing everyday. Tell me if the bat feels a little heavier. If the back is a little more sore. If the knees creak a little more. Playing the field over the course of an entire Major League, takes a toll that doesn't happen when you're sitting on the bench the vast majority of the time. It's not about defense in this regard, it's just about wearing down. How do you think Ortiz's knees and back would hold up with his weight if he had to play the field everyday for the entire season? He was having troubles last year just DHing. Playing 1B and DHing is just not the same at all, in terms of the strain on the body over the course of the season.

I've played baseball. Somewhat rigorous schedules too when I was in legion, and I really didn't feel any worse at the end of it than I did in the beginning. Maybe that's just me though.

I mean sure, maybe playing in the field might do something, but am I really going to base a HOF vote on something like that? No. I'm not going to expect something more out of a player because he doesn't possibly put more stress on his knees or back or whatever because he doesn't play in the field because of a rule in the American League that basically makes a team have some one hit for their pitcher.

[DoubleX]

I mean sure, maybe playing in the field might do something, but am I really going to base a HOF vote on something like that? No. I'm not going to expect something more out of a player because he doesn't possibly put more stress on his knees or back or whatever because he doesn't play the field.

It's expecting more because his one and only job is to hit. That's what you're paying him to do. If expectations didn't matter, why not just put a utility player in the DH role? The purpose of that role is to have a guy that can hit, and you pay them for that one purpose, and that's why you look for better hitters in that role. It's the same way you expect a 1Bman to hit better than a SS or C. The value in the DH position is all in hitting, so the expectation is all in hitting, moreso than at any other position.

EDIT: To clarify what I'm saying, it's just another positional adjustment. The same way it's fair to expect a 1Bman to be a better hitter than a SS, it's fair to expect a DH to be a better hitter than anyone else because that's their only purpose is to hit, nothing else. If expectations didn't matter, then why not just have a light hitting SS DH?

[Westlake]

It's expecting more because his one and only job is to hit. That's what you're paying him to do. If expectations didn't matter, why not just put a utility player in the DH role? The purpose of that role is to have a guy that can hit, and you pay them for that one purpose, and that's why you look for better hitters in that role. It's the same way you expect a 1Bman to hit better than a SS or C. The value in the DH position is all in hitting, so the expectation is all in hitting, moreso than at any other position.

I didn't say expectations didn't matter, i'm just saying i'm not expecting more than I would from a guy who goes out and hacks it up in the field at first base. You look for the best hitters that aren't very good in the field to be in that role because it's a role that needs filling in the American League.

I mean, do you really think that if Ortiz played first base his OPS+ would have, been incredibly different this season (or even more that a point or two different)? I don't, personally.

Plus, it is what it is. He's a DH, he doesn't have to play defense. I'm not going to penalize him for not playing bad defense. If comparing him to a good defender, then that's another thing. Put there's really no way to quantify the difference, and no way to really prove anything. It's complete guesswork and i'm not going to make a big assumption like that, especially when it could make absolutely no difference at all in some cases.

[philkid3]

Yeah, sure, why wouldn't a DH qualify? If he's a great hitter he's a great hitter. He loses some value by not playing defense and by playing the easiest position to find offense for, but not so much more than a first baseman and you can't just assume he'd get injured or something. I mean, you need to hit better at DH than any other position to get in, by a fairly large margin, IMO, but that doesn't mean they should automatically be kept out or have to reach some unreal expectations.

I would not say Ortiz especially, though, since I don't have him in the Hall of Fame at this point -- even if he was a first baseman -- and I'm not sure he'll get there.


A hypothetical here, but if someone were to win three World Series MVPs as a DH and played an integral role in getting that team to the World Series those years but had an otherwise very good career but fell a little short of the traditional HOF numbers, you don't think that person would deserve a look?
I wouldn't. And likewise, if that player's numbers are HOF worthy, it shouldn't matter how good his teams were.


World Series play and being a big contributor on World Series teams are what got Kirby Puckett into the Hall of Fame where his comparable Don Mattingly's been left sitting on the bench to this point.
If that's true, which I don't deny, that's not a good argument. No one is saying how the Hall of Fame is, they're saying how it should be. And there are many who don't think Puckett belongs, and many of those who do think he belongs don't put him in because of how good his teams were.

Puckett also played better defense and more valuable positions than Mattingly. And without being bothered to check, I'm pretty sure he had more good years.



I am NOT a Sox fan, but I doubt the Sox would have been 2 time World Series Champ without Ortiz and last year the only reason they were competitive was because of Ortiz.

I cannot deny Ortiz is currently one of the best players in Baseball especially in the clutch.

I know you like to stir the pot and probably aren't serious, but I'm biting anyway. Really? The ONLY reason they were competetive was David Ortiz? He, by himself, was worth 90+ wins?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

If you play for the White Sox it is..

If he played for the Cubs, then that would have been different

In his prime Thomas was very famous among the baseball fans, sportswriters, and others. He led the White Sox to the postseason and won back-to-back MVP awards. I don't think playing for the White Sox will be a hinderance to his HoF candidacy.

[DoubleX]

I mean, do you really think that if Ortiz played first base his OPS+ would have, been incredibly different this season (or even more that a point or two different)? I don't, personally.

I do. Ortiz had knee problems last year, and if he had to go out there and play the field for 9 innings everyday for 6 months, I think it would have caught up with him at some point, especially given his size. I wouldn't be surprised if it got to the point where he would have been on the DL, as there was some talk about that possibly happening at one point last year. Like I've said several times before, there have been too many great hitters historically that broke down in the pre-DH era, and saw their production and careers wane, even if it was just playing 1B. Being in the field everyday takes a toll, and I think you're very much underestimating this. Going back to Edgar Martinez - he was injury prone and played poor defense, so where would he have played in a DHless world? Without the DH, I believe his career would have been much more like Ted Kluszewski's. So yes, I believe not playing DH can make a significant difference in production for a player, like Martinez or Ortiz, that might not be able to stay in the lineup without the DH.

Plus, it is what it is. He's a DH, he doesn't have to play defense. I'm not going to penalize him for not playing bad defense. If comparing him to a good defender, then that's another thing. Put there's really no way to quantify the difference, and no way to really prove anything. It's complete guesswork and i'm not going to make a big assumption like that, especially when it could make absolutely no difference at all in some cases.

I still think you're missing my point here. It's not just about bad defense, it's about having an advantage to be a better hitter, which I believe he has. His position, DH, is a position in which you expect him to be a better hitter, just as you would expect a 1Bman to be a better hitter than a SS. It's a fair positional adjustment, IMO, given the requirements of Ortiz's position, which is to do nothing but hit and sit on the bench for the vast majority of the season. If the expectation on the position were not for good hitting, why not use a utility-type player as a DH?

Plus, it is what it is. He's a DH, he doesn't have to play defense.

I've highlighted this statement because it can be construed to remove any positional adjustments. In the same vein that a DH is a DH and shouldn't be punished for not playing defense, then should we not make an adjustment for a 1Bman not playing SS? The point is that the different positions emphasize different aspects of the game, some emphasize defense more than others. The DH emphasizes hitting more than any other position because that's the only thing there, and thus it's fair to expect more in that department just as it's fair to expect a 1Bman to hit more than a SS and a SS to field better than a 1Bman. And I realize you want to equate 1B to DH as you don't see the difference in being a bad defensive 1Bman and a DH, but I believe there is a definite difference. It's not as drastic as the difference between SS and 1B, but the simple act of being in the field creates a difference because it creates an extra strain which I believe you are underestimating.

Moreover, wouldn't you hold bad defense at 1B against a player? So would you not hold anything in that respect against Ortiz because he doesn't even play 1B? Would that be fair? And assuming you do hold Ortiz's poor defensive abilities against him, which is the reason why he is a DH, isn't that in itself a positional adjustment? You'd be adjusting for the fact that he is a DH rather than a 1Bman - the reasoning being bad defense, and that reason should be held against him to some degree.

[philkid3]

If relievers, whose value is vastly overrated, can make the HOF, then why not a DH who bats 140+ games a year?

:clapping


The opinion tends to go: "reliever is a position, so the best at performing that position should be in." Well, why doesn't that apply to DH?

Let's not kid ourselves. The real reason some people don't want DHs in is a personal distaste for the impure rule, not a fair and balanced evaluation of the player's candidacy.



Ortiz isnt only about Stats, its about Clutch hitting, He gets the TOUGH RBI's

If there was 2 out in the 8th inning and runners on first and second, Ortiz is the player most likely to get the hit

Prove it. And show me how much that means to an entire body of work.

[jjpm74]

:clap


The opinion tends to go: "reliever is a position, so the best at performing that position should be in." Well, why doesn't that apply to DH?



DH is also a position. In this case, the position is hitter. Because they are solely being looked at as hitters and have a defensive value of zero, their hitting alone is what is measured. Because of this, the same standard applied to relief pitchers also applies to DHs. In order to have a legitimate case for induction as a DH, they must be more than just a star. They must be a superstar and one of the best hitters of their generation. Likewise with relievers where of the guys not already in Cooperstown, only Rivera, Quisenberry, Smith and occasionally Hoffman really get any attention as relievers. The idea of being one of the best hitters is the case when talking about Frank Thomas. Edgar Martinez isn't such a clear cut case and guys like David Ortiz still have a long way to go to get there.

One of the reasons for this is that the perception of DH. The perception of reliever to this point is someone who can't cut it as a starter in the case of relievers and in the case of DH is someone who has a good bat but can't field. Another reason is the notion that DH is an overrated position which is a bias that, like it or not, is still very much there and one that is also applied to relief pitchers.

[philkid3]

Will Frank Thomas be hurt by playing for smaller market teams, he does have HOF numhers
I'm pretty sure Chicago is not a small market. Anyone looking at Hurt's candidacy will not be looking at his Oakland and Toronto years.


and Papi plays for a big market team and appears on Sports Center almost every night by virture of playing for Boston. Will this help him???
Yes, unfortunately, it will. And the "mystique" that surrounds him.

You should have heard ESPN argue about Manny and Ortiz's candidacy. They determined Ortiz had a much better Hall of Fame chance. It was borderline offensive.

[Westlake]

I think the main reason Ortiz appears on SC a lot is because he is really, really good.

[jjpm74]

.

You should have heard ESPN argue about Manny and Ortiz's candidacy. They determined Ortiz had a much better Hall of Fame chance. It was borderline offensive.

Who was actually arguing Ortiz deserves it more than Ramirez? That's sad if true. Ramirez is one of the best players of his generation and would get in if he never played another game. Not the case yet when it comes to Ortiz.

[philkid3]

DH is also a position. In this case, the position is hitter. Because they are solely being looked at as hitters and have a defensive value of zero, their hitting alone is what is measured. Because of this, the same standard applied to relief pitchers also applies to DHs. In order to have a legitimate case for induction as a DH, they must be more than just a star. They must be a superstar and one of the best hitters of their generation. Likewise with relievers where of the guys not already in Cooperstown, only Rivera, Quisenberry, Smith and occasionally Hoffman really get any attention as relievers. The idea of being one of the best hitters is the case when talking about Frank Thomas. Edgar Martinez isn't such a clear cut case and guys like David Ortiz still have a long way to go to get there.
I don't base who I think should be in the Hall of Fame on the subjective star power and popularity a guy has with the general baseball fans.

[philkid3]

Who was actually arguing Ortiz deserves it more than Ramirez? That's sad if true. Ramirez is one of the best players of his generation and would get in if he never played another game. Not the case yet when it comes to Ortiz.

I've heard it on Baseball Tonight from John Kruk and Steve Phillips, and FJM actually mocked the Game Night people on the radio for saying it. I'll go find the post.


Mini-Gallimaufry! (http://www.firejoemorgan.com/2006/06/gallimaufry-one-day-in-fjm-land_27.html) A year and a half old, but still, not much was different a year and a half ago.

[jjpm74]

I don't base who I think should be in the Hall of Fame on the subjective star power and popularity a guy has with the general baseball fans.

?

I'm not talking about star power. I'm talking about reaching milestones that define them as the best of their generation. I'm not sure where you're getting a notion of anything subjective from what I said.

[philkid3]

?

I'm not talking about star power. I'm talking about reaching milestones that define them as the best of their generation. I'm not sure where you're getting a notion of anything subjective from what I said.


From this:

In order to have a legitimate case for induction as a DH, they must be more than just a star. They must be a superstar and one of the best hitters of their generation.

I don't put that much importance on milestones, either. And I agree that they must be one of the best hitters of their generation, but I also think that's true for first basemen and most corner outfielders, too. Less so than DH, but still so.

I consider Edgar Martinez one of the best hitters of his generation.

[jjpm74]

I consider Edgar Martinez one of the best hitters of his generation.

You might, but whether or not enough of the BBWAA feels that way to elect him remains to be seen. I'd be very surprised if he made it in right away. Maybe he will eventually get in. Time will tell. If he does, it'll help set a precedent for future DHs (as was the case with Sutter's election to Cooperstown in the case of relievers) which is a good or a bad thing depending on one's perception of the role of a DH on a team.

[jjpm74]

And I agree that they must be one of the best hitters of their generation, but I also think that's true for first basemen and most corner outfielders, too. Less so than DH, but still so.

Maybe, maybe not, but their role as a position player does factor in.

[philkid3]

Maybe, maybe not, but their role as a position player does factor in.

I never said it didn't or shouldn't.

[baseballPAP]

I think the main reason Ortiz appears on SC a lot is because he is really, really good.

And the fact that Boston and NY teams are featured on SC predominantly? Whatever will they talk about on baseball tonight if those teams ever cycle back to their days of .500 ball? The ESPN Network is pitiful these days, hiring former players as experts who are totally biased, or who have terrible insights into the games. So much for the total sports news network.

[Westlake]

And the fact that Boston and NY teams are featured on SC predominantly? Whatever will they talk about on baseball tonight if those teams ever cycle back to their days of .500 ball? The ESPN Network is pitiful these days, hiring former players as experts who are totally biased, or who have terrible insights into the games. So much for the total sports news network.

Yeah, sure, but he is also very, very good.

[willshad]

why is it 'no question' that Ortiz would be a hall of famer as a first baseman? Hes virtually identical to Mo Vaughan at the same age, and Vaughan was a first baseman only. You dont see Vaughan getting much hall of fame support, if any at all. If he retired today he would get zero votes, even if he was a first baseman his whole career. Im not saying hes not a great hitter, but he just doesnt have the career stats a hall of famer needs. And, if he follows Vaughan's career path, it is likely he will never get there.
That being said, he certainly has a hall of fame peak, even for a DH. Better than Edgar in that he's more dominant....5 consecutive top 5 MVP finishes. Incredible. With any kind of longevity, say 400 homers and 1500 RBI, he should make it in I think. Not many players were the best hitter in the league for a 5 year stretch and havent made the hall of fame.

[DoubleX]

I think the main reason Ortiz appears on SC a lot is because he is really, really good.

He is, but up until this past season, Travis Hafner and Ortiz had put up similar numbers the previous few years, with Hafner perhaps being slightly better, and he couldn't buy any SC coverage. Playing in Boston and the rivarly, has definitely enhanced Ortiz's exposure. I said this earlier, that I think if Ortiz ended with similar or perhaps even inferior numbers to Edgar Martinez, that I think Ortiz could have an easier time getting in the Hall because of the subjective Fame factor - Ortiz has received a lot more attention than Martinez ever received.

[leecemark]

--Ortiz does get more exposure because he is a part of a great team. He is a BIG part f htat team though and I don't think its inappropriate that he get credit for that. If he ends up with numbers similar to Edgar Martinez he probably will have a somewhat better chance with the voters and I don't have a problem with that. He may actually help Edgar's chances. If martinez hasn't completely fallen off the radar by that time then having a similar candidate who is a popular choice will be a boost to him.
--I think we all agree that a DH has zero defensive value and that they need to be held to a higher offensive standard. The disagreement is in how MUCH higher that standard should be than a average (or bad even) fielding LFer or 1B. Some think alot higher and some just a little. I am in between on this one. I don't think Manny Ramirez or Frank Thomas have much defensive value and, if anything, there play in the field detracts from their greatness. Still we at least know than can take the field. Paul Molitor and Edgar Martinez could not. Oritiz probably could, but also would probably have misses more games if he had to be on the field between at bats. That is as big or bigger a factor for me than the defensive value issue.

[DoubleX]

--I think we all agree that a DH has zero defensive value and that they need to be held to a higher offensive standard. The disagreement is in how MUCH higher that standard should be than a average (or bad even) fielding LFer or 1B. Some think alot higher and some just a little. I am in between on this one. I don't think Manny Ramirez or Frank Thomas have much defensive value and, if anything, there play in the field detracts from their greatness. Still we at least know than can take the field. Paul Molitor and Edgar Martinez could not. Oritiz probably could, but also would probably have misses more games if he had to be on the field between at bats. That is as big or bigger a factor for me than the defensive value issue.

Well said Mark. This is exactly what I was trying to say earlier. It's not so much about the crummy defense I'm concerned with, it's that simply being out there could undermine production. In Ortiz's case, he had knee problems last year and if he had to play 1B, I'm pretty sure he would have missed time last year, thus the DH allows him to be more productive than he would be otherwise. To what extent is debatable, and I'm not going to say that Ortiz wouldn't be a great hitter if he had to play 1B, just that his ultimate production would probably be altered to some degree.

The way that defense could come into play here is that in a DHless world, it's possible that Ortiz, because of his poor defensive ability, might not have received enough regular playing time to establish himself in Boston as he has. I've said many times - before the DH, if you couldn't play defense well, you couldn't stay in the lineup, and we saw a lot of great hitters have their careers end because of this. So in this respect, I think an argument can be made that the DH has been an element in Ortiz's success. That's not to say that he isn't a great hitter, it's just that he may have needed the DH as a vehicle to establish himself.

[dl4060]

I'm pretty sure Chicago is not a small market. Anyone looking at Hurt's candidacy will not be looking at his Oakland and Toronto years.


This has been said before, but the White Sox are not a big market team, the cubs are. The Yankees are also a much bigger market team than the Mets. I don't think it will matter for Thomas, he's in anyway.




You should have heard ESPN argue about Manny and Ortiz's candidacy. They determined Ortiz had a much better Hall of Fame chance. It was borderline offensive.

Really? That is absolutely absurd. An argument like that completely destroys the credibility of the person making it.

[philkid3]

This has been said before, but the White Sox are not a big market team, the cubs are. The Yankees are also a much bigger market team than the Mets. I don't think it will matter for Thomas, he's in anyway.
The White Sox are a SMALL market? I can understand them not being as big as the Cubs, but I can't see them as a small market team. You're right, the Mets aren't as big a market as the Yankees, but they're still a big market.





Really? That is absolutely absurd. An argument like that completely destroys the credibility of the person making it.
That's okay. John Kruk, Steve Phillips and Doug Gottlieb have plenty of credibitily to fall back on.


. . .

[dl4060]

The White Sox are a SMALL market? I can understand them not being as big as the Cubs, but I can't see them as a small market team. You're right, the Mets aren't as big a market as the Yankees, but they're still a big market.



The White Sox are right around the middle.

http://www.forbes.com/2006/04/17/06mlb_baseball_valuations_land.html


That's okay. John Kruk, Steve Phillips and Doug Gottlieb have plenty of credibitily to fall back on.


. . .

If they keep making arguments like David Ortiz having a better HOF candidacy than Manny Ramirez they will need all they can get.

[Freakshow]

--Ortiz does get more exposure because he is a part of a great team. He is a BIG part f htat team though and I don't think its inappropriate that he get credit for that. If he ends up with numbers similar to Edgar Martinez he probably will have a somewhat better chance with the voters and I don't have a problem with that. He may actually help Edgar's chances. If martinez hasn't completely fallen off the radar by that time then having a similar candidate who is a popular choice will be a boost to him.
--I think we all agree that a DH has zero defensive value and that they need to be held to a higher offensive standard. The disagreement is in how MUCH higher that standard should be than a average (or bad even) fielding LFer or 1B. Some think alot higher and some just a little. I am in between on this one. I don't think Manny Ramirez or Frank Thomas have much defensive value and, if anything, there play in the field detracts from their greatness. Still we at least know than can take the field. Paul Molitor and Edgar Martinez could not. Oritiz probably could, but also would probably have misses more games if he had to be on the field between at bats. That is as big or bigger a factor for me than the defensive value issue.
When Molitor was first eligible, I adjusted his win shares for each season, deducting 20% for his DH games. I also gave him credit for the abbreviated seasons of 1981, 1994-95. So his unadjusted WS of 414 went to 429 for the schedule adjustment, then to 394 for the DH deduction.

In years he DH'ed a lot he lost 4-5 win shares. For example, in 1991, 92, 93 he had WS of 30, 28, 29. His DH games in those years were: 112 of 158 total games in 1991, 108 of 158, and 137 of 160. With the 20% deduction for time at DH, those three years become 26, 24, 24.

His top seven years go from a weighted average of 29.0 to 26.7. Rather than 30-30-29-29-28-27-27 he has 30-26-26-26-26-25-24 as his top seven years.

Still a hall of famer, but not nearly so impressive.

[Dodgerfan1]

I'm basically in the same camp as Double X on this issue. I have always believed that DHs had it a lot easier than 'regular' players who also play the field, for many of the same reasons Double X has given. To be a DH is to be a one-dimensional player. If they had good, or even decent, fielding skills, they likely wouldn't be full-time DHs. DHs also don't have to run the risk of getting injured in the field, which also gives them a special advantage over the rest of the players.

The very reason a player like Barry Bonds is constantly being considered for a DH position is because he is so banged up that he can't play the field very well anymore. I see him play almost every game he is in the lineup, and I don't care what anyone says about how he can still 'go get it', the fact is he is a mere shadow of his former self in the field and cannot 'go get it' anymore. But he can still hit. These are the players whose longevity is increased by becoming a DH. The very fact that they can't injure themselves chasing down fly balls or can't lose a ballgame by not having any range in the infield is why they are not in the field. Those players, IMO, are not complete ballplayers and since I hold the concept of the Hall of Fame in high esteem as a shrine for the absolute greatest players ever, I don't feel one-dimensional players belong there. I also feel the same way about closers.

This is not to say that crappy fielders cannot be enshrined, as we all know there are several HOFers who were suspect in the field. But at least they PLAYED the field. They took their turn with the glove, and for that, I consider them more worthy of enshrinement than those who are full-time DHs.

[zahavasdad]

Is the Hall of Fame for the greatest players ever??

Or the greatest players of an Era?

I dont know if Ortiz is one of the greatest ever??

But he is certainly one of the greatest of the last 10 years

[Dodgerfan1]

Is the Hall of Fame for the greatest players ever??

Or the greatest players of an Era?

I dont know if Ortiz is one of the greatest ever??

But he is certainly one of the greatest of the last 10 years

Certainly one of the greatest DHs, anyway. Yes.

[DoubleX]

Those players, IMO, are not complete ballplayers and since I hold the concept of the Hall of Fame in high esteem as a shrine for the absolute greatest players ever, I don't feel one-dimensional players belong there. I also feel the same way about closers.

Good post. I highlighted this one part because it's where I think you and I differ a little. I'm not per se against DHs or closers getting in the Hall. If they were truly dominant at what they did, then I think they would belong. For a DH, I make a positional adjustment just as I would for most any position based on the requirements and difficult of the position. With a DH, because they do nothing but hit and lack any of the other difficulties and risks of other positions, the positional adjustment is to require a higher level of hitting than I would at other positions.

Take Ortiz for example, he has been hitting at a very high level for the past 5 years. If he can continue at or near that level for 10-12 years, I think he could have a good argument for the Hall, because his hitting is just that good, even with the DH positional adjustment.

[Dodgerfan1]

Good post. I highlighted this one part because it's where I think you and I differ a little. I'm not per se against DHs or closers getting in the Hall. If they were truly dominant at what they did, then I think they would belong. For a DH, I make a positional adjustment just as I would for most any position based on the requirements and difficult of the position. With a DH, because they do nothing but hit and lack any of the other difficulties and risks of other positions, the positional adjustment is to require a higher level of hitting than I would at other positions.

Take Ortiz for example, he has been hitting at a very high level for the past 5 years. If he can continue at or near that level for 10-12 years, I think he could have a good argument for the Hall, because his hitting is just that good, even with the DH positional adjustment.

Given the positional adjustment you have outlined, I could be persuaded to allow a DH into the HOF, provided the voters adhere to it and judge him accordingly.

[digglahhh]

If they keep making arguments like David Ortiz having a better HOF candidacy than Manny Ramirez they will need all they can get.

Funny this is brought up in the DH for HOF thread. Manny is a HOFer, no doubt about it -and his numbers are worthy even if he was a DH.

But, think about it, why ISN'T Manny a DH? Because of David Ortiz, presumably.

But, is that correct? Would Ortiz playing 1B cost a team more runs than Manny playing the outfield? I don't know, seems like a reasonable question.

Granted, part of the answer lies in the quality of replacement they can muster for the left out position, so it comes to a question of which will produce the most runs, created at the plate and saved in the field?

A) Manny in LF, Ortiz DH, next best option at 1B
B) Next best option in LF, Ortiz 1B, Manny DH.

Last year they went with Youk who added a quality bat and great 1B defense. If their roster was composed differently though, it may be a good quetion - especially as Manny begins to have trouble staying healthy for full seasons.

[zahavasdad]

Maybe I am in the minority, but I think Oritiz is much more dangerous than Manny.

Right now IMO after A-Rod, Ortiz is probably the best player in the AL if not the major leagues.

Whatever the reason he became great after joing the Red Sox , most likely he was the right player for the right team, The Sox hadnt won a WS in 85 years , Oritiz comes and they win 2 out of 4. Of course it takes a team to win a WS, but great player elevate a team.

[Paul Wendt]

Certainly one of the greatest DHs, anyway. Yes.

It's remarkable how few people have played much DH. This year David Ortiz became the tenth man to play 5 full season equivalent games in the DH role.

The other side of the coin is that everyone who has played even 5 full seasons as DH is rather well known. Some of you could name all 10 without any research, although you would probable miss one or two in fact.

The top twenty by DH playing time go all the way down to 3.3 full seasons equivalent (Cecil Fielder).

[philkid3]

Maybe I am in the minority, but I think Oritiz is much more dangerous than Manny.

Right now IMO after A-Rod, Ortiz is probably the best player in the AL if not the major leagues.

Whatever the reason he became great after joing the Red Sox , most likely he was the right player for the right team, The Sox hadnt won a WS in 85 years , Oritiz comes and they win 2 out of 4. Of course it takes a team to win a WS, but great player elevate a team.

If you think he's better than Manny right now, you're probably right. If you think he's better than Manny ever was, you're in quite the minority indeed.

And if you think he's better than Albert Pujols. . .

[Paul Wendt]

I'm basically in the same camp as Double X on this issue. I have always believed that DHs had it a lot easier than 'regular' players who also play the field, for many of the same reasons Double X has given. To be a DH is to be a one-dimensional player. If they had good, or even decent, fielding skills, they likely wouldn't be full-time DHs. DHs also don't have to run the risk of getting injured in the field, which also gives them a special advantage over the rest of the players.

No doubt some hitters avoid injury they would have suffered by taking the field every day. On the other hand, I recall reading of a study showing that, overall, players bat more successfully when they "play the field" than when they are designated. We have all heard of the lonely routines: barely a part of the team, go to the clubhouse between plate appearances and take batting practice against Iron Mike, struggle to remain focused, etc. This evidence, which I recall vaguely but can't cite, suggests that DH is a difficult position to play. Our typical DH is hitting a bit less than he would hit until that hypothetical injury in the field.

[willshad]

If you think he's better than Manny right now, you're probably right. If you think he's better than Manny ever was, you're in quite the minority indeed.

And if you think he's better than Albert Pujols. . .

Ortiz was better than Pujols last season, and just a half a notch below him the few seasons before that, if that. Its not ridiculous to say that right now he is a better hitter than Pujols.

[baseballPAP]

I wonder if any of you here who are saying 1B is an unimportant defensive position (someone here called it "second DH" has any idea of how many errors a good defensive 1Bman saves in a year. I saw estimates ranging from 30 to 100.... Pujols is definitely a good defensive 1Bman...he can pick it with anyone, and has a wide wingspan that turns a lot of errant throws into outs. By this, I'd estimate he's worth AT LEAST 50 outs over the course of a season that Big Papi can't compete with....that makes their comparison a tough one if you're trying to defend Ortiz I would think.

[philkid3]

Ortiz was better than Pujols last season, and just a half a notch below him the few seasons before that, if that. Its not ridiculous to say that right now he is a better hitter than Pujols.

It's debatable that Ortiz was better offensively. I think it's pretty hard to say he was better when you consider he played DH while Pujols played awesome defense at first base.

[philkid3]

I wonder if any of you here who are saying 1B is an unimportant defensive position (someone here called it "second DH" has any idea of how many errors a good defensive 1Bman saves in a year. I saw estimates ranging from 30 to 100.... Pujols is definitely a good defensive 1Bman...he can pick it with anyone, and has a wide wingspan that turns a lot of errant throws into outs. By this, I'd estimate he's worth AT LEAST 50 outs over the course of a season that Big Papi can't compete with....that makes their comparison a tough one if you're trying to defend Ortiz I would think.

30-100 is a huge range!

And yes, Pujols adds a whole lot of value at defense, very few people debate that. But how many first basemen do?

[willshad]

It's debatable that Ortiz was better offensively. I think it's pretty hard to say he was better when you consider he played DH while Pujols played awesome defense at first base.

Well, offensively Ortiz is at least Pujols' equal at this point..he seems to get better every year and Pujols seems to decline every year. I dont know that its fair to penalize a DH for his fielding when hes not even in the field. I think you have to see how they compare to OTHER DHs, whom dont take the field either. So I think any comparison between Pujols and Ortiz would have to be based n how they compare to others at their same position. Isnt that what we do for players at all the other positions?

[philkid3]

Well, offensively Ortiz is at least Pujols' equal at this point..he seems to get better every year and Pujols seems to decline every year.
How does he seem to decline every year? One year is not every year. And it wasn't a sharp decline, anyway.

2006 may have been his best year and it was certainly not a decline.


I dont know that its fair to penalize a DH for his fielding when hes not even in the field.
Who penalized him? He gains nothing defensively, while Pujols gains a lot. He also plays at the position where offense is the least valuable. It's not that valuable at first, either, but more so than DH.


I think you have to see how they compare to OTHER DHs, whom dont take the field either. So I think any comparison between Pujols and Ortiz would have to be based n how they compare to others at their same position. Isnt that what we do for players at all the other positions?
And that's what I did. For his position, Pujols creates a ton of value on defense. For his position, Ortiz does not. For his position, they both create value on offense, Pujols creates more.

[DoubleX]

Interestingly, there is an article today at SI.com by Tom Verducci (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/tom_verducci/03/04/verducci.ortizHOF/index.html?eref=T1) about how Ortiz is on his way to the Hall. I haven't read the whole article yet, but given the timing, it's one of those instances that happens every now and then that makes you wonder if some of these writers are checking in on us. Or it could just be a coincidence. :)

[Paul Wendt]

Interestingly, there is an article today at SI.com by Tom Verducci (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/tom_verducci/03/04/verducci.ortizHOF/index.html?eref=T1) about how Ortiz is on his way to the Hall. I haven't read the whole article yet, but given the timing, it's one of those instances that happens every now and then that makes you wonder if some of these writers are checking in on us. Or it could just be a coincidence. :)

There was an article in the Boston Globe (or free Boston Metro?) last summer, near Labor Day, I would guess if you asked, to the point that the peak seasons of David Ortiz may be a thing of the past and decline may be expected annually. He is having his worst season [focus on HR and RBI there?] because he can no longer drive the ball. Because of his weight, just like Mo Vaughn, he may be out of baseball by 35. (Vaughn did play a little at 35.)

Manny Ramirez has shown pretty good durability. Although his games played have dipped a little, I guess the Red Sox are more concerned about the quality of his play when he is out there. And more concerned about David Ortiz remaining/regaining sound in body.

P.S. I think Ortiz at first might cost a lot of runs relative to a good fielder. More than Manny relative to Yaz.

[Paul Wendt]

Of course the Hall of Fame should honor great designated hitters. How great?

What about pitchers who do not bat? They are not complete players. Of course the Hall of Fame should honor the best AL pitchers of the DH era.
(Psst. The Hall of Fame does not honor a single starting pitcher who came up since the last true pennant races and the first mlb team in a foreign country.)

How much better should we ask AL pitchers to be as pitchers and fielders because they do not bat?
Consider a pitcher a batting record like Don Sutton 1966-1982 (his NL career minus the swan song at age 43).
.145 .185 .158
OPS+ ~ 0

What should we require from AL pitchers to level the competition for honors?