David Ortiz to the Hall of Fame? Maybe the ESPN Hall of Fame
Tom Verducci examines David Ortiz's HOF chances. Rather poorly if I say so myself
When Edgar Martinez appears on the Hall of Fame ballot after the 2009 season, Boston designated hitter David Ortiz might be watching the election results closely. Ortiz, like Martinez, was a relative late-bloomer in the majors who became a dominant hitter with no significant defensive component to his game. Neither gained full-time status early enough in the majors to accumulate traditionally "magic" lifetime numbers, such as hits, home runs and RBIs. But both men were universally respected by their peers to be among the very best pure hitters of their era.
Things Edgar Martinez and David Ortiz have in common:
-played in the AL their whole careers
-Were DH's
-Both became good players around the age of 27
Things Edgar Martinez and David Ortiz DO NOT have in common:
-being relatively late bloomers--that is, Edgar Martinez's first full season in the majors saw him put up an OPS+ or 132. Ortiz's first full season saw him put up an OPS+ of 101
-the kind of hitter they were:
Ortiz (as Verducci will later explain) is not likely to play much more than 3-5 years. That would put his number of years at peak performance at about 8-10. Martinez had about 14 years putting up All-Star caliber numbers (all-star used as a very general measurement and not a criterion for the HOF, nb): 1990-2003
Ortiz's 162 game AVG (not a perfect measure of a player, but close enough): 36 HR/120 RBI/
Martinez's 162 game AVG : 24 HR/99 RBI/
Martinez's career HR in 18 seasons (15 of them full seasons): 309
Ortiz's career HR in 11 seasons (8 of them full): 266
Why are we comparing these guys again?
Look--I get it--DH is a nebulous position for the HOF. Voters don't tend to like DH's. Ortiz and Martinez are both DH's and Martinez comes up for eligibility this year which makes it timely to compare the two. But here's the thing: THEY WERE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PLAYERS. Ortiz is a guy who had 5 incredible seasons of power and production while Martinez was a guy who put up consistently excellent but by no means breathtaking numbers for a long long time. A better comparison to Ortiz would be Frank Thomas, Jim Thome, Carlos Delgado, or any number of one-dimensional power-hitting studs. Instead we get the lazy no-brain choice...for an entire article.
thought about Martinez, Ortiz, DHs and the Hall of Fame the other day after I sat down with Ortiz at his makeshift breakfast table in the middle of the Red Sox clubhouse.
?.........?
Ortiz hacked away at a plastic bowl filled with granola and a paper plate stressed by almost a dozen hard-boiled eggs, of which Ortiz ate only the whites.
Health! What a paragon of athleticism. And yet, so irrelevant to the article!
Bland? Given Ortiz's lack of enthusiasm for his morning gruel, you could probably find more satisfied diners at the Guantanamo Bay mess hall.
It's amateur-hour at the short-bus school. And yet to a certain extent, this is interesting insofar as it gives us insight to the kind of guy who would latch on to the mere fact that Edgar Martinez and David Ortiz played similar, non-old-timey position as proof positive that one is the HOF-barometer for the other.
"Boring," Ortiz complained. "But this is what I have to do. You don't get better as you get older in your career. It's not natural to have your best years late in your career. So I'm trying to do whatever I can to keep my body feeling good for as long as I can."
Ortiz is 32 years old. He has started to think about retirement. No, Sox fans, he's not ready to pack it in any time soon. But Ortiz has reached a point where he is beginning to think about the end.
"What I don't want to do," Ortiz said, "is just play for the sake of playing. If I can't hit at a high level, I won't play, and I know there comes a point where my body won't be able to do that."
Ortiz is signed through 2010 and the Red Sox hold a rather affordable option for 2011 at $12.5 million. He will turn 36 after that 2011 season. And then?
In other words, Ortiz will probably remain a superstar for about 3-5 more years. Which will give him 8-10 years of being a superstar, about 450 HR and an iffy chance at the HOF. I guess he's like Martinez in more ways than I gave Verducci credit for...
I'm going to skip some of the pap. Here's the part that pissed me off the most (beside the Martinez/Ortiz comparison)
Those questions [i.e. whether Ortiz and, say, Thome according to Verducci should be considered HOF locks] come from a voter who has a decided bias against DHs. They are specialists, not complete ballplayers. That doesn't mean they can't be Hall of Famers, but they better be extraordinary at their specialty because they contribute nothing to half the game. Think closers and field-goal kickers.
Ok....there's nothing necessarily wrong with this general sentiment--I would expect closers and DH to be held to higher rigor than gold-glove position players and starting pitchers. However, this isn't really an issue because middling DH's and closers don't really even come up for debate. Where is the Jim Rice of closers being discussed for the HOF? The only current closers anyone thinks has a chance to make the HOF right now are Rivera and Hoffman (and maybe Smoltz, but he's a SP too). Does ANYONE have any doubt in their mind those two will make it? Edgar Martinez is the only DH I've ever heard of whose #'s wouldn't be a no-brainer as a position player, and he won't make it--BECAUSE HIS NUMBERS AREN'T EVEN GOOD FOR A POSITION PLAYER.
This is so overblown--there are no Ryne Sandberg's or Bert Blyleven (one day, hopefully) being considered seriously at closer or DH. Only superstars--Frank Thomas, Jim Thome, David Ortiz, Trevor Hoffman, Mariano Rivera. Guys whose numbers are insane. Guys who are "guys you would buy tickets to go see play".
Ugh. Oh and field goal kickers? Closer~Field Goal Kicker? I guess NFL teams are paying their field goal kickers bank to make those field goals....right? I guess NFL teams play theme songs like Hells Bells when Nate Kaeding comes out to chip in a 30 yarders. I've EVER seen a dude wearing Adam Vinateiri (the most famous Kicker in NFL)'s jersey.
Closer? Heck, if I'm being generous a kicker is the equivalent to a mop-up reliever. If I'm being realistic a late-inning defensive replacement.
Oh and just one more thing:
Finally, there's the completely unscientific test: give me your five best hitters in baseball. You don't have to crunch the numbers on this one. Just tell me the five guys who you think are the best in the business at squaring up a baseball. If you didn't have Ortiz on that short list in any of the past four seasons, I'd have to question what you've been eating for breakfast.
1. Albert Pujols
2. Barry Bonds
3. Alex Rodriguez
4. Manny Ramirez
5. Travis Hafner
Fuck you Verducci
23 comments:
ZOMG Chris W. posted!!!!
I also think that Ortiz is probably borderline for top 5 hitters in baseball over the past 4 years. A-Rod, Pujols, and Bonds are obviously better, but by EqA, Ortiz has actually been a tad better than Manny. Hafner might actually have the edge despite a sub-par 2007 (and projections for such struggles to continue), but you could easily argue that there have been 5 hitters better than Ortiz. Verducci is just plain crazy for thinking it's not arguable.
I have a hard time believe Big Papi is going to be able to keep his numbers up for the next 3-5 years. Maybe I am just a diehard Anti-Red Sox person, but he seems to waddle as he runs anyway, so I can only imagine it will get worse as he gets older, no matter how many egg whites he eats. I guess all that waddling won't matter if he hits 45 HR/year though. I guess he would be in my top 5 best hitters in baseball.
Not to mention he is so clutch. I looked up his cluthiness rating (it is on a scale of 1-10) and it is a 9.9 while A Rod's is much lower at 4.6 and Bonds has not been clutch at all with a rating of 5.6. Babe Ruth only had a clutchiness rating of 8.7. I think they should factor that into his HoF candidacy, as well as his Amicable rating which (again on a scale of 1-10) is a 9.6. He actually is the all time leader for DH's in Amicable and Clutch rating so he seems like a first ballot HoF to me. Then when you consider his TeddyBearishness rating (9.8) and PlaysfortheRedSox rating (an impressive 10.0) I think he very well could be one of the greatest hitters ever, not only the best DH ever. He also plays for the Red Sox, who in 2004 singlehandedly are responsible for the increased popularity of baseball. That team helped people who were not fans at all or only moderate fans find a team to cheer for...at least for the next couple years until they find another favorite team.
I guess we will never know if he will actually keep the numbers up until we see his yearly PECOTA projections. That is the real determinate, right?
Sorry for the horrible grammar on that last post. I get excited about rambling concerning my least favorite team and forget to proofread in gleeful expectation of posting my lastest excrement filled blast of idiocy. The first paragraph I was serious, second was sarcastic, third was an attempt to be funny.
I tried to think of a list of my top 5 players and somehow Mark Texiera (I will learn to spell it correctly when we resign him) ended up on it and then I realized I am biased. So no list of top 5 players of the past four years, just rambling.
If we look at that actual exhortation on Verducci's part (something I, unfortunately, glossed over in my haste to get this post up before i lost interest in getting this post up) we can see it means one or two things:
"If you didn't have Ortiz on that short list in any of the past four seasons, I'd have to question what you've been eating for breakfast."
could mean that "if you excluded Ortiz from ALL of the past 4 years, you're a moron" which is essentially hanging his HOF hat on the fact that he was a top 5 hitter AT LEAST ONCE in the past 4 years. However, that says basically NOTHING on his behalf so let's look at the other possible meaning:
"If you didn't have Ortiz on that short list in any of the past four seasons, I'd have to question what you've been eating for breakfast."
MOST LIKELY means that if you didn't have Ortiz as a top 5 hitter in EACH of the past four years you're a moron. Which is retarded.
Ortiz had the 2nd best OPS in 2007, the 5th in 2006, and the 5th in 2005, but he wasn't even in the top 10 in 2004. Also, OPS is a bad measure of "best 'at squaring up a baseball'" because it puts a bit of a skew toward OBP.
In 2007 Ortiz was 10th in BA and 3rd ins SLG...you could make a pretty fair argument that Maggs, A-Rod, Holliday, and Chipper Jones were better hitters than him in one of his best years ever.
In 2006 Ortiz didn't make the top 10 in BA and was 4th in SLG. You could make the argument that Hafner, Dye, Pujols, Cabrera, Holliday once again, and Howard were better hitters than him.
In 2005 Ortiz once again didn't rate in BA and was 4th in SLG. This time, Derek Lee, A-Rod, Hafner, Cabrera, Manny, and Delgado might have been better.
In 2004, Ortiz didn't rate in BA and was 7th in SLG. A whole hell of a lot of people were better than him.
So Verducci, in 2005 and 2007 I have Ortiz in the top 5 "at squaring up a baseball, and 2004 and 2006 outside that top 5. What cereal have I been eating? Probably the kind where you actually think about the claims you make and not rely on the media creation of Bristol, CT to determine "facts as you see them"
Thanks Chris. That's what I meant to say. I am really lazy and get bored very quickly with trying to find stats on the internet. I just don't consider Ortiz one of the top 5 hitters even in the past 4 years or possibly even in each of the last four years. ESPN does love themselves some Red Sox.
I hate the Red Sox and I'm not saying that Ortiz belongs in the Hall of Fame, but I think the one key thing, and the thing that Verducci was probably getting at was that at least from 2005-2007 he's the only guy in the discussion each year. Now I understand in 2004 he was apparently way off (although still a good hitter), but the fact that you named Hafner, Arod, Cabrera, Manny, Holliday and Pujols and he's still consistently there in the conversation while the others float in and out shows you how good he was the last few years. Unfortunately, 3 years doesn't make you a HOFer and verducci said 4 years, but you get my point, hopefully.
To be fair, SLG isn't all that fair a measurement of "who is best at squaring up a baseball" as it tends to give an unfair advantage to people who aren't LARDASSES WHO COULDN'T LEG OUT A DOUBLE IF THEIR LIVES DEPENDED ON IT
The scariest thing is Ortiz is one of those guys that will undoubtedly spawn 1000 articles arguing for his entrance to the hall based on his a.) clutchiness b.) "pitchers were SCARED of him factor c.) Postseason totals d.) clutchiness and e.) fear factor that will all come up short and give you guys something to do for at least 10 years.
I can totally see this happening because he fits that dynamic to a tee. Even I started making those arguments to myself for .5 secs until I thought better of it.
Ortiz is absolutely in the conversation for HOF provided he has 5 more years like he's had.
However, he is not likely to nor should he be discussed now after 5 excellent years and no more, nor should he be compared to Edgar Martinez who was nothing like him...
PS: Hall of Very Good
I once interviewed Jay Jaffe of Baseball Prospectus and got into a long quasi-argument over David Ortiz. His point was that he isn't remotely in the conversation for Hall of Fame, while my point was that there's no way a fact like that would stop the Boston media and/or fans, especially if he wins another World Series or two before he's done. I guess that story still works without the namedrop (not that that's really THAT much of a namedrop), but I think I'm claiming that counts as my research for this post.
I mean, he's essentially just the reincarnation of Jim Rice, right? Pretty much down to the last detail, really.
Other than the fact that he has multiple rings, of course, which is a huge advantage for Ortiz. Oh, and he's not nearly as prickly. So actually, he's exactly like Jim Rice, except in two crucial ways that'll greatly help his chances to be endlessly discussed for the Hall.
And hell, why not Miguel Cabrera?
The fact Big Fattie is very nice to the media and everyone in general is really going to help his candidacy.
A. The committee likes you and thinks you are a swell guy.
B. You win World Series titles (singlehandedly I might add, pitching had nothing to do with it)
C. You are CLUTCH! Thereby people remember you seem better than you truly were.
D. You put up decent numbers that are borderline HoF.
E. You play for a team the media absolutely loves to talk about.
You get in the HoF!
Cinnamon Toast Crush? Really?
It's homemade!
It's Cinnamon Toast Crunch with Orange Crush soda substituted for milk. Helps me wake up.
Larry, I eat much the same, except I can only get Orange Sunkist in my next of the woods. Also I mix a little cocaine in there. I'm told Tim Raines ate something similar.
"My next of the woods" should probably be "My neck of the woods." Although when you think about it, I'm not sure why one inherently makes more sense than the other.
Just wanted to add one thing... Edgar Martinez has the exact same career adjusted OPS as A-Rod, Willie McCovey, Mike Schmidt and Willie Stargell. There are more than 50 current and no brainer future Hall of Famers with a lower career adjusted OPS than Edgar.
My point is - don't use OPS+ as an argument for the start of your piece if you're going to totally negate it later when you say "BECAUSE HIS NUMBERS AREN'T EVEN GOOD FOR A POSITION PLAYER."
3 of the 4 overall measuremets of a hitter used by baseball-reference have him at or above HOF levels. So casually dismissing him is kinda of lame.
Andrew:
Edgar has 2247 H, 309 HR and never won an MVP.
He was a 7 time All-star, career .312 hitter, won 2 batting crowns.
I think he's the definition of a "borderline but NOT IN HOF candidate."
I'm not saying he doesn't deserve to be in, but if you think that voters look at adjusted OPS in terms of their HOF votes, I think you need to reevaluate how HOF voters think.
As a position player Martinez would have been a first ballot no-brainer. As a DH it will take him a few years but that line of .312/.418/.515 is definitely HOF worthy.
Post a Comment