Re: A case for David Ortiz to the HOF
posted at 12/26/2013 7:27 PM EST
In response to BMav's comment:
How bout a player who has the same amount of top 20 vote MVP seasons, more homers in the post season then Papi[22 vs. 17], more titles with 4 and put up a 858 career OPS and 850 playoff OPS playing CF? Careeer steals of 147. Four gold gloves. More then 300 more hits then Papi. Hall of Famer? He failed to even get the votes to stay on the ballot last season even though steroids have never been mentioned with Bernie Williams.
If its simply about power, Jim Thome has 181 more homers then Papi. Delgado and McGriff have a lot more homers then Papi.
If its about single season greatness, Papi has zero MVP's and Dale Murphy has 2. Don Mattingly has an MVP and a 2nd place finish. Murphy failed to get in and Mattingly probably won't either.
Its not easy to get into the HOF. Papi doesn't belong quite yet. It isn't that DH makes you disqualified. But it definately should be a major negative. As should a lack of career totals. As should a lack of all round game. As should a lack of seasonal greatness. If not for the post season numbers, he wouldn't even be a reasonable candidate at this stage.
If Papi retired tommorow he would not get in and shouldn't.
Good points. My take on the players you mentioned.
Williams' defense puts that in play but you still need to look at batting numbers. Postseason numbers are important but only IMHO as the last bit that could push a guy over the top. Williams is just another player whose career numbers aren't enough to make him a no-brainer, even with the postseason. He has the one batting title but never led the league in homers or RBIs, although he was often a middle-of-the-order bat. Although he had a number of very good to elite seasons, he simply falls in line with many similar players -- All-Stars who had some great years but could not quite put together enough career numbers.
There's not one factor that should be used. Very good to elite individual seasons is key but longevity is also important. And it should. The longevity is what seperates many similar players like the three you mentioned.
Yes Mattingly has won a batting title and led the league in RBIs once, but he had just five seasons that could be considered elite years and just three more full seasons that could be rated very good. So that's just eight very good to elite seasons of a 14-year career. I don't know how you'd classify a 9 HR, 68 RBI, .288 BA in 152 G year -- an OK year or decent year.
Had he played six more years with just decent numbers -- 150 hits, 12 HR, 80 RBI, he would have had just over 3,000 hits, nearly 1,600 RBIs and close to 300 HRs. That could have pushed him over the top.
Murphy had five elite years and another eight good to very good years, and that almost was good enough. The fact that his other eight years were poor -- or just not playing enough in his first two years of big league experience -- drags down his career numbers and make him a borderline candidate.
Ortiz is right in line with these guys. He has eight very good to elite seasons and five OK to good seasons (small range). So that's in line with many other players. Now the task for him is to have at least three more good to very good or better seasons that will push his career numbers over the top and makes him a stronger candidate, especially when you add postseason.