He hit some dingers in the '04 postseason and was crowned by the organization to be the greatest Red Sox clutch hitter of all time. I think if we really dig into the stats, the reality will not back up the myth, the statistics just aren't there. Ortiz comes through with an occasional late-inning hit, but the stats do not suggest he ever dominated the game for any length of time.
I like Adam Darowski's metric way better.
http://darowski.com/hall-of-wwar/about/
"Its an absolute mess. The only way to fix it is to kick everyone out of the Hall of Fame and start from scratch. So thats what I did."
He even directly answers the question regarding Ortiz's current HOF eligibility: not even close yet, still behind Rice who barely made it.
http://www.hallofstats.com/articles/is-david-ortiz-our-generations-jim-rice
Its a stretch, but in the process he may collect the 69 home runs he needs to reach 500 for his career, making him look more attractive to more traditional voters (he passed 2,000 hits in 2013).
Will he distance himself from Rice and reach a point where a conflicted stat-geek-with-homer-tendencies is ready to call him a Hall of Famer? Quite possibly.
Absolutely wrong. If we "dig into the stats" they show that Papi got better in the playoffs (357 PA's or 295 ABs) vs regular season. He hit a Homerun every 17.35 ABs (295/17), only Pujols is better (14.833 ABs). That's fucking clutch.
In terms of achieving regular season wins and helping his team reach the postseason, Jim Thome was a far, far more valuable designated hitter than Ortiz.and Ortiz is the greatest DH of his era.
Are you suggesting Ortiz slumped his way through the regular season? Does that explain his early years playing for the Twins? Was that team too boring and unclutchly for him to bother to make an effort to help his teammates win?
In terms of achieving regular season wins and helping his team reach the postseason, Jim Thome was a far, far more valuable designated hitter than Ortiz.
But what exactly does that even mean? The DH is a specialization position in hitting only. Why would you choose not to ask the question, is Ortiz the greatest hitter of his era? That title, I'd have to say goes to Pujols, because Bonds & A-Rod are blacklisted from my memory All 3 of those players eclipsed Ortiz's offensive stats while simultaneously devoting time and skills to playing a defensive position in the field.
Did I ever mention my bias against the DH Sorry, I just can't help myself some times!
But the debate isn't about whether a DH should be the best hitter of his era, but that he is the best DH to fill that position among his DH peers.
Technically, closers are in the game even less than DHs, because not every game is close. The DH is in every single game. If the best closers are in the Hall, then so should the best DHs.
Thome only DH'd for 6 years out of 22~ seasons, and no, he was not feared more than Ortiz during his DH stint in the AL: 2006-2011. Let's compare stats from those years:
Ortiz - 3682 PA/3107ABs, .284 BA, .944 OPS, 143 OPS+, 78 IBB, 21.2 WAR
Thome - 2846 PA/2340ABs, .266 BA, .931 OPS, 142 OPS+, 43 IBB, 17 WAR
Not only was Ortiz way healthier with over a full season of at bats than Thome (767), but he sustained a higher batting average and OPS and higher intentional walk rate per AB (2.5% vs 1.8%), 4.2 more WAR, and 18 points in batting average. Thome's numbers are still very good for a DH but Ortiz added more value and sustained higher percentages over more at bats. He was the best DH of his era in the AL.
Regarding Ortiz' early years, not everyone gets off to a great start in their careers.
Is Ortiz the greatest hitter of his era? No. Non-roids, I agree that Pujols and other modern hitters like Miggy Cabrera are better and some other retired guys like Chipper Jones, Griffey Jr, Frank Thomas, etc. But the debate isn't about whether a DH should be the best hitter of his era, but that he is the best DH to fill that position among his DH peers. Ortiz was/is more feared in his era than current HOFers like Jim Rice and future HOFers like Thome. You may think that fear is unwarranted, but he beat Thome head to head over a 6 year span at DH. He's getting intentionally walked more than Pujols and Cabrera very late in his career. If he can keep it up until 500 HRs I don't have a problem with putting both he and Edgar in the HOF.
Regarding a DH in the HOF, the way I look at it is that it's similar to the closer. They only get paid for around 4-5ABs per game. Technically, closers are in the game even less than DHs, because not every game is close. The DH is in every single game. If the best closers are in the Hall, then so should the best DHs.
Nope, the debate is whether DH's should be inducted into the Hall at all, and if they should, what higher bar of batting performance should they need to exceed to make up for the fact that they don't field a position.
Straw dog. Not wholly analogous. Yes, the DH is in every single game, but do you really want to use that metric to promote them over, say any elite starting pitcher, who isn't? I didn't think so.
The whole debate about whether closers should be eligible is yet another kettle of fish.
Mmmmmmm, seafood, eat food. <----- Like see the ball, hit the ball.
One thing about the walk rate, that is going to depend on who's in the lineup AFTER the DH hits, if your looking at another strong bat then the walks go down as now you've put a potential run on base if the player hitting behind a DH has some pop in his bat, if it's a SS batting .240 with 13 RBI's and 2 HR's then you either intentionally walk the DH or "pitch around" him and try to get him to swing at some pitches he can't do much with.
Thome only DH'd for 6 years out of 22~ seasons, and no, he was not feared more than Ortiz during his DH stint in the AL: 2006-2011. Let's compare stats from those years:
Ortiz - 3682 PA/3107ABs, .284 BA, .944 OPS, 143 OPS+, 78 IBB, 21.2 WAR
Thome - 2846 PA/2340ABs, .266 BA, .931 OPS, 142 OPS+, 43 IBB, 17 WAR
This is true in some cases and it is situational. However, in general and over time the best hitters will amass the most intentional walks. This year is a good example. Look at Miguel Cabrera, a clearly superior hitter overall vs teammate Victor Martinez. Yet VMart is on fire so they are pitching to Cabrera and intentionally walking VMart to get to Torri Hunter or Austin Jackson. Managers know who the hottest and most dangerous hitters are so they'll usually get most of the IBBs, even with another dangerous batter in the lineup.
The significance of defensive positions is as follows:
1-pitcher
2-catcher
3-shortstop
4-2nd base
5-3rd base
6-center field
7-right field
8-left field
9-1st base
10-DH
To be a HOF designated hitter you must have offensive statistics that eclipse the outfielders in the league, eclipse the shortstops in the league, the catchers in the league.
That's how baseball works. First-basemen must produce greater offensive numbers than 3rd-basemen who must produce greater offensive numbers than catchers.
Mark Grace was the Cubs first basemen when I was growing up, and he was a star on the team, played the best defensive first base in the league, and was a fantastic hitter for average and walks, lead the entire major league in hits during the decade of the 1990's. And clutch? How about a key hit in the bottom of the 9th off Mariano Rivera, the greatest regular season and post-season closer ever, in game 7 of the 2001 World Series as the Diamonbacks were facing series defeat trailing the Yankees?
Mark Grace received just 4% of the HOF vote.
Position matters, and the DH is the lowest position in the game.
Ortiz will most likely have very similar stats to Hall of Fame masher Willie Stargell after he gets an equal amount of Plate Attempts (500~ behind):
.286BA, 443HRs, .927 OPS vs .282, 475HRs, .889 OPS
Will be interesting to see if/when he passes Stargell in the next couple of years if the HOF talks really ramp up for Ortiz. I do agree that he will need to probably hit 500 as a DH since Stargell did not while playing the field.
I'm a results oriented guy. For the most part, WAR does a far better job at populating the HOF than what currently exists.
Anyhow, most of today's ballparks are bandboxes compared to ballparks of yesteryear, and Fenway is one of the original bandboxes. The game has been watered down. In my mind, placing Ortiz in the HOF (based on current stats) only further dilutes the value of baseball.
One of my favorite baseball stadiums of all-time! Where real men played a more (comparatively speaking) honest game of baseball and could actually field a position.
Can you imagine having to patrol that outfield in today's game? Ortiz would drop dead of a stroke/myocardial infarction within the first day.
Players who are incapable of fielding have to hit significantly more homeruns to "qualify".
(I'm biased towards the National League, the DH is not a position)
Huh? good luck selling tickets in that POS idea of a ballpark and with a foul-line@258ft add17 more HR's to Ortiz's stats not to mention having 2-3 inside the park HR's every game. Fenway is a national treasure and should NEVER be taken down OR Wrigley field, as we pass through our life's enjoying baseball Fenway and Wrigley ARE baseball, imperfect yet timeless, after we are all long gone and pushing up daisies, 200 years from now people should come to a place of where 10 generations ago the game was played, it's called "historic", why don't they just tear down Big Ben and replace it with a modern giant LED clock,... NO!, NO!, NO!,NO!,NO!,... not now, not next year, not next EVER!...When the Sox owners started looking for places for a spot to replace Fenway they were quickly informed by current patrons if you build it, we won't go and they were not joking. With the reactions from the fan base and looking at insane amounts of $$ to acquire enough space in downtown Boston for a new park they came to their senses and just upgraded Fenway a little with the seats above the "monster"..