Is David Ortiz a HOFer (2 Viewers)

[DropKick]

Talking about Miguel Cabrera's shortcomings as a fielder are pretty irrelevant to this discussion, because he's a transcendent, once-in-a-lifetime hitter. Ortiz has had a lot of very good to excellent seasons, but let's not pretend they're in the same stratosphere offensively.

And like Shady says, the DH part won't keep him out. It's the steroid allegations. The all-time home run king isn't sniffing the HOF anytime soon, so I can't imagine David Ortiz will get in without a ticket.

Again, how can you compare Bonds' association with PEDs to Ortiz? If you have a little smoke with Ortiz you have a raging forest fire with Bonds.

Right, but it doesn't appear voters are going to care if someone only took "a little bit" of steroids. A cheater is a cheater is a cheater, is how they've been looking at it. In fact, they've even been looking at it as, even if there's a possibility that you're a cheater then you're a cheater. A guy with ANY allegations is already on the outside looking in. My point wasn't to compare the two. My point is, we have a guy who was a first-ballot HOFer BEFORE any steroid allegations. And even HE can't get in based on that. With Ortiz's potentially positive test result coming in 2003 which is the first year he was a breakout offensive talent, there's no way he can get a pass for that.

As for the DH thing...let's assume he was a better fielder and was good enough to play the field. He'd then be a top-ten 1B in his era but far from being the best. Pujols, Helton, Prince, Berkman, Thome, Votto, and Miggy (before he went back to 3B), can all make a case for being better than Ortiz. Hell even Giambi has a higher career OPS+. I'm not going to give Ortiz credit for being the best DH of his era when the only reason he even WAS a DH is because he wasn't good enough to play the field. Any one of those guys, plus probably about two dozen more players, would have been better DHs than Ortiz if they too had horrible gloves. Sorry, I'm not voting for Ortiz just because he was the tallest midget.

It wouldn't surprise me if Ortiz used PEDs. It wouldn't surprise me if any player did. But even you use the word "potentially". His name was leaked - without specifics - as one of ~100 players alleged to have tested positive on the "survey" test to implement formal testing - and close to 10% of that group was reported to have been for some type of supplement. Is Ortiz innocent? I have no idea but, in a court of law, people would throw around the term reasonable doubt. It is sad if, as you say, HOF voters believe you must be "beyond doubt".

I'll spot you Thome & Pujols (who has steroid allegations too in this witch hunt age) but any one of those guys (Berkman? Helton? plus another two dozen players?) would have made better DHs? Ortiz should finish top 30 in all time HRs and respectable numbers is many other categories. You act like that level of production grows on trees.

Again, Oriz has nice numbers, rings, clutch hits and big performances on the biggest stage. We'll just have to wait 8-10 years to see how the voting goes...

 

[Michael Brown]

Talking about Miguel Cabrera's shortcomings as a fielder are pretty irrelevant to this discussion, because he's a transcendent, once-in-a-lifetime hitter. Ortiz has had a lot of very good to excellent seasons, but let's not pretend they're in the same stratosphere offensively.

And like Shady says, the DH part won't keep him out. It's the steroid allegations. The all-time home run king isn't sniffing the HOF anytime soon, so I can't imagine David Ortiz will get in without a ticket.

Again, how can you compare Bonds' association with PEDs to Ortiz? If you have a little smoke with Ortiz you have a raging forest fire with Bonds.

Right, but it doesn't appear voters are going to care if someone only took "a little bit" of steroids. A cheater is a cheater is a cheater, is how they've been looking at it. In fact, they've even been looking at it as, even if there's a possibility that you're a cheater then you're a cheater. A guy with ANY allegations is already on the outside looking in. My point wasn't to compare the two. My point is, we have a guy who was a first-ballot HOFer BEFORE any steroid allegations. And even HE can't get in based on that. With Ortiz's potentially positive test result coming in 2003 which is the first year he was a breakout offensive talent, there's no way he can get a pass for that.

As for the DH thing...let's assume he was a better fielder and was good enough to play the field. He'd then be a top-ten 1B in his era but far from being the best. Pujols, Helton, Prince, Berkman, Thome, Votto, and Miggy (before he went back to 3B), can all make a case for being better than Ortiz. Hell even Giambi has a higher career OPS+. I'm not going to give Ortiz credit for being the best DH of his era when the only reason he even WAS a DH is because he wasn't good enough to play the field. Any one of those guys, plus probably about two dozen more players, would have been better DHs than Ortiz if they too had horrible gloves. Sorry, I'm not voting for Ortiz just because he was the tallest midget.

It wouldn't surprise me if Ortiz used PEDs. It wouldn't surprise me if any player did. But even you use the word "potentially". His name was leaked - without specifics - as one of ~100 players alleged to have tested positive on the "survey" test to implement formal testing - and close to 10% of that group was reported to have been for some type of supplement. Is Ortiz innocent? I have no idea but, in a court of law, people would throw around the term reasonable doubt. It is sad if, as you say, HOF voters believe you must be "beyond doubt".

I'll spot you Thome & Pujols (who has steroid allegations too in this witch hunt age) but any one of those guys (Berkman? Helton? plus another two dozen players?) would have made better DHs? Ortiz should finish top 30 in all time HRs and respectable numbers is many other categories. You act like that level of production grows on trees.

Again, Oriz has nice numbers, rings, clutch hits and big performances on the biggest stage. We'll just have to wait 8-10 years to see how the voting goes...

I intentionally used the word potentially" so that nobody would say I was claiming it as fact. But gun to my head, yeah he took steroids.

Also, the phrase "can make a case for being better" (which was what I said) is very different from saying they were definitively better. I'm not claiming those guys definitely were better, just that they're all int he conversation. People are bringing up being the best DH as if that in and of itself is criteria for getting in. My whole point was that he's probably on the same level as (and certainly not head and shoulders above) a bunch of other guys who are considered Hall of Very Good type of players, and at least those guys played the field.

 

[DropKick]

Talking about Miguel Cabrera's shortcomings as a fielder are pretty irrelevant to this discussion, because he's a transcendent, once-in-a-lifetime hitter. Ortiz has had a lot of very good to excellent seasons, but let's not pretend they're in the same stratosphere offensively.

And like Shady says, the DH part won't keep him out. It's the steroid allegations. The all-time home run king isn't sniffing the HOF anytime soon, so I can't imagine David Ortiz will get in without a ticket.

Again, how can you compare Bonds' association with PEDs to Ortiz? If you have a little smoke with Ortiz you have a raging forest fire with Bonds.

Right, but it doesn't appear voters are going to care if someone only took "a little bit" of steroids. A cheater is a cheater is a cheater, is how they've been looking at it. In fact, they've even been looking at it as, even if there's a possibility that you're a cheater then you're a cheater. A guy with ANY allegations is already on the outside looking in. My point wasn't to compare the two. My point is, we have a guy who was a first-ballot HOFer BEFORE any steroid allegations. And even HE can't get in based on that. With Ortiz's potentially positive test result coming in 2003 which is the first year he was a breakout offensive talent, there's no way he can get a pass for that.

As for the DH thing...let's assume he was a better fielder and was good enough to play the field. He'd then be a top-ten 1B in his era but far from being the best. Pujols, Helton, Prince, Berkman, Thome, Votto, and Miggy (before he went back to 3B), can all make a case for being better than Ortiz. Hell even Giambi has a higher career OPS+. I'm not going to give Ortiz credit for being the best DH of his era when the only reason he even WAS a DH is because he wasn't good enough to play the field. Any one of those guys, plus probably about two dozen more players, would have been better DHs than Ortiz if they too had horrible gloves. Sorry, I'm not voting for Ortiz just because he was the tallest midget.

It wouldn't surprise me if Ortiz used PEDs. It wouldn't surprise me if any player did. But even you use the word "potentially". His name was leaked - without specifics - as one of ~100 players alleged to have tested positive on the "survey" test to implement formal testing - and close to 10% of that group was reported to have been for some type of supplement. Is Ortiz innocent? I have no idea but, in a court of law, people would throw around the term reasonable doubt. It is sad if, as you say, HOF voters believe you must be "beyond doubt".

I'll spot you Thome & Pujols (who has steroid allegations too in this witch hunt age) but any one of those guys (Berkman? Helton? plus another two dozen players?) would have made better DHs? Ortiz should finish top 30 in all time HRs and respectable numbers is many other categories. You act like that level of production grows on trees.

Again, Oriz has nice numbers, rings, clutch hits and big performances on the biggest stage. We'll just have to wait 8-10 years to see how the voting goes...

I intentionally used the word potentially" so that nobody would say I was claiming it as fact. But gun to my head, yeah he took steroids.

Also, the phrase "can make a case for being better" (which was what I said) is very different from saying they were definitively better. I'm not claiming those guys definitely were better, just that they're all int he conversation. People are bringing up being the best DH as if that in and of itself is criteria for getting in. My whole point was that he's probably on the same level as (and certainly not head and shoulders above) a bunch of other guys who are considered Hall of Very Good type of players, and at least those guys played the field.

There have been great hitters who played marginal defense that were in the game simply because of their ability at the plate. I think you judge a DH on what he is supposed to do - and that is hit. This is a specialty within the game just as is relief pitching. You wouldn't (or shouldn't) diminish the achievement of a relief pitcher because they weren't "good enough" to be a starter.

I'm not trying to position Ortiz as an elite athlete - I would agree with a "very good" label. My point is that his post season performance has been stellar and, at the end of the day, clutch hits and championships matter and I think that will be a difference maker for him.

 

[Eephus]

This is why voting for MLB awards is conducted before the post-season.

 

[dparker713]

Talking about Miguel Cabrera's shortcomings as a fielder are pretty irrelevant to this discussion, because he's a transcendent, once-in-a-lifetime hitter. Ortiz has had a lot of very good to excellent seasons, but let's not pretend they're in the same stratosphere offensively.

And like Shady says, the DH part won't keep him out. It's the steroid allegations. The all-time home run king isn't sniffing the HOF anytime soon, so I can't imagine David Ortiz will get in without a ticket.

Again, how can you compare Bonds' association with PEDs to Ortiz? If you have a little smoke with Ortiz you have a raging forest fire with Bonds.

Right, but it doesn't appear voters are going to care if someone only took "a little bit" of steroids. A cheater is a cheater is a cheater, is how they've been looking at it. In fact, they've even been looking at it as, even if there's a possibility that you're a cheater then you're a cheater. A guy with ANY allegations is already on the outside looking in. My point wasn't to compare the two. My point is, we have a guy who was a first-ballot HOFer BEFORE any steroid allegations. And even HE can't get in based on that. With Ortiz's potentially positive test result coming in 2003 which is the first year he was a breakout offensive talent, there's no way he can get a pass for that.

As for the DH thing...let's assume he was a better fielder and was good enough to play the field. He'd then be a top-ten 1B in his era but far from being the best. Pujols, Helton, Prince, Berkman, Thome, Votto, and Miggy (before he went back to 3B), can all make a case for being better than Ortiz. Hell even Giambi has a higher career OPS+. I'm not going to give Ortiz credit for being the best DH of his era when the only reason he even WAS a DH is because he wasn't good enough to play the field. Any one of those guys, plus probably about two dozen more players, would have been better DHs than Ortiz if they too had horrible gloves. Sorry, I'm not voting for Ortiz just because he was the tallest midget.

It wouldn't surprise me if Ortiz used PEDs. It wouldn't surprise me if any player did. But even you use the word "potentially". His name was leaked - without specifics - as one of ~100 players alleged to have tested positive on the "survey" test to implement formal testing - and close to 10% of that group was reported to have been for some type of supplement. Is Ortiz innocent? I have no idea but, in a court of law, people would throw around the term reasonable doubt. It is sad if, as you say, HOF voters believe you must be "beyond doubt".

I'll spot you Thome & Pujols (who has steroid allegations too in this witch hunt age) but any one of those guys (Berkman? Helton? plus another two dozen players?) would have made better DHs? Ortiz should finish top 30 in all time HRs and respectable numbers is many other categories. You act like that level of production grows on trees.

Again, Oriz has nice numbers, rings, clutch hits and big performances on the biggest stage. We'll just have to wait 8-10 years to see how the voting goes...

I intentionally used the word potentially" so that nobody would say I was claiming it as fact. But gun to my head, yeah he took steroids.

Also, the phrase "can make a case for being better" (which was what I said) is very different from saying they were definitively better. I'm not claiming those guys definitely were better, just that they're all int he conversation. People are bringing up being the best DH as if that in and of itself is criteria for getting in. My whole point was that he's probably on the same level as (and certainly not head and shoulders above) a bunch of other guys who are considered Hall of Very Good type of players, and at least those guys played the field.

There have been great hitters who played marginal defense that were in the game simply because of their ability at the plate. I think you judge a DH on what he is supposed to do - and that is hit. This is a specialty within the game just as is relief pitching. You wouldn't (or shouldn't) diminish the achievement of a relief pitcher because they weren't "good enough" to be a starter.

I'm not trying to position Ortiz as an elite athlete - I would agree with a "very good" label. My point is that his post season performance has been stellar and, at the end of the day, clutch hits and championships matter and I think that will be a difference maker for him.

Should you also not deduct for his awful baserunning? He's costing his team flexibility by clogging the DH spot (which should be abolished, but that's a whole other issue), and the loss in flexibility is a detriment to the team. And while he's been a great hitter for a decade, he's not been otherworldly nor is a decade that long in HOF terms. And if relief pitchers weren't dinged for not being good enough to be a starter, then why aren't Lee Smith, Dan Quisenberry and a host of others serious contenders for the HOF?

 

[DropKick]

This is why voting for MLB awards is conducted before the post-season.

Not talking about MVPs or a seasonal award, but a career Not that MLB "honors" are always fair. All Stars are often named based on on past laurels and the "Gold Glove" can be a farce. Baseball is a game of big moments. Reggie Jackson, a great player, was elevated and renowned for his performance in October.

I looked through the list of hall inductees and it has been slim lately. Maybe this is a by-product of the PED era. In general, admission standards are high. One guy that jumped out at me (a little) is Kirby Puckett. Good numbers - but a relatively short career due to the eye issue. Great Batting average (.318), especially for a right hander. But he lacked the cumulative numbers often cited. He did have two W.S. championships and a key dramatic HR as well to help win a championship. He was voted in his first year of eligibility. How much did his post season heroics influence the voters?

ETA: I'm not saying the post season made his career but elevated/completed it.

 

[Eephus]

This is why voting for MLB awards is conducted before the post-season.

Not talking about MVPs or a seasonal award, but a career Not that MLB "honors" are always fair. All Stars are often named based on on past laurels and the "Gold Glove" can be a farce. Baseball is a game of big moments. Reggie Jackson, a great player, was elevated and renowned for his performance in October.

I looked through the list of hall inductees and it has been slim lately. Maybe this is a by-product of the PED era. In general, admission standards are high. One guy that jumped out at me (a little) is Kirby Puckett. Good numbers - but a relatively short career due to the eye issue. Great Batting average (.318), especially for a right hander. But he lacked the cumulative numbers often cited. He did have two W.S. championships and a key dramatic HR as well to help win a championship. He was voted in his first year of eligibility. How much did his post season heroics influence the voters?

ETA: I'm not saying the post season made his career but elevated/completed it.

How do you feel about Jack Morris?

 

[Kenny Powers]

How about MVPs?

There's a lot of 1-time MVPs who won't ever make 50% of the HOF ballots, and a lot of guys in the HOF who never won one. I doubt two-time MVP Juan Gonzalez will get in.It seems in the minds of HOF voters, how good a player was over his best 10-12 seasons matters more than how great his best 1-2 seasons were. Given how many players in their late 30s are in the gray ink and are factors in pennant races year in and year out, IMO it's fair to consider longevity.

I was speaking of Thomas.

During 90-99 he finished in the top 10 in batting average six times, on-base percentage seven times, slugging percentage seven times, OPS seven times, runs scored six times, hits four times, doubles two times, home runs six times, runs batted in seven times, and walks eight times.

Thomas is a lock

Big Hurt should be First Ballot, IMO

 

[DropKick]

This is why voting for MLB awards is conducted before the post-season.

Not talking about MVPs or a seasonal award, but a career Not that MLB "honors" are always fair. All Stars are often named based on on past laurels and the "Gold Glove" can be a farce. Baseball is a game of big moments. Reggie Jackson, a great player, was elevated and renowned for his performance in October.

I looked through the list of hall inductees and it has been slim lately. Maybe this is a by-product of the PED era. In general, admission standards are high. One guy that jumped out at me (a little) is Kirby Puckett. Good numbers - but a relatively short career due to the eye issue. Great Batting average (.318), especially for a right hander. But he lacked the cumulative numbers often cited. He did have two W.S. championships and a key dramatic HR as well to help win a championship. He was voted in his first year of eligibility. How much did his post season heroics influence the voters?

ETA: I'm not saying the post season made his career but elevated/completed it.

How do you feel about Jack Morris?

I always like Morris and was thrilled to see him pitch live in Tiger Stadium (~1985) against, I believe, against Mike Boddiker. Expecting a pitcher's duel, I got a slug fest.

He pitched the 10 inning shutout after Puckett extended the series to a 7th game. He won another title but I don't recall another dominant post season performance. Certainly, that would benefit the resume of a guy on the bubble or just shy of making the hall.

Personally, I like Morris' numbers and would give him the nod. However, I think the HOF bar is still a little higher than I think it should be. Anyone who can win 250+ games can pitch. And the position has changed so much over the years. High mound, lower mound, pitch counts, etc. Morris pitched before they babied the pitchers. 30+ decisions weren't uncommon back then and that would have some impact on the stats.

ETA: Other guys elevated for clutch post season heroics are Bill Mazeroski and, in football, Joe Namath,

 

[Raider Nation]

Bob Ryan was on FOX Sports Radio yesterday, and he was asked if Ortiz is a Hall-of-Famer.

It took him less than a second to scream "YES!"

He then went on to bash Bonds, calling him a fraud and a cheater. Oh, the irony.

Is this guy for real? Those homer glasses do remarkable things.

 

[Anarchy99]

Around Boston it is almost considered sacrilegious to even think that Ortiz is not a HOFer. They discussed this on the radio the other day. The consensus among experts/guests on the show was that Papi was the second greatest Red Sox after Ted Williams. Apparently his post season perfromances give him a golden ticket to Cooperstown.

I still am in the "he's borderline" category, as I think he will lose votes for the potential steroids connection and for not playing in the field much. I am a Sox fan . . . and I probably would not vote for him.

 

[Eephus]

Around Boston it is almost considered sacrilegious to even think that Ortiz is not a HOFer. They discussed this on the radio the other day. The consensus among experts/guests on the show was that Papi was the second greatest Red Sox after Ted Williams. Apparently his post season perfromances give him a golden ticket to Cooperstown.

Yaz down?

I still am in the "he's borderline" category, as I think he will lose votes for the potential steroids connection and for not playing in the field much. I am a Sox fan . . . and I probably would not vote for him.

Voters' attitudes will change over the next 12-15 years so it's possible he'll get in. But based on recent history, he'll be a controversial candidate.

 

[Anarchy99]

Around Boston it is almost considered sacrilegious to even think that Ortiz is not a HOFer. They discussed this on the radio the other day. The consensus among experts/guests on the show was that Papi was the second greatest Red Sox after Ted Williams. Apparently his post season perfromances give him a golden ticket to Cooperstown.

Yaz down?

I still am in the "he's borderline" category, as I think he will lose votes for the potential steroids connection and for not playing in the field much. I am a Sox fan . . . and I probably would not vote for him.

Voters' attitudes will change over the next 12-15 years so it's possible he'll get in. But based on recent history, he'll be a controversial candidate.

They went Papi over the other candidates . . . Yaz, Rice, Pedro, Fisk, Ruth (not enough time with Boston), Clemens, Cy Young, etc. Wasn't my call, but that's what they chose.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Around Boston it is almost considered sacrilegious to even think that Ortiz is not a HOFer. They discussed this on the radio the other day. The consensus among experts/guests on the show was that Papi was the second greatest Red Sox after Ted Williams. Apparently his post season perfromances give him a golden ticket to Cooperstown.

Yaz down?

Didn't Yaz just say that Ortiz is the 2nd-best Sox hitter, after Williams?

For whatever it's worth.

 

[Smack Tripper]

No.

Roids.

Next.

Mike piazza can't in because someone saw backne and this guy was redacted from the Mitchell report.

It's a joke if he gets In based on who is kept out.

On the field though, he belongs

 

[shadyridr]

I personally think steroid guys like bonds and clemens should get in. I also think big papi deserves to be in the hall.

 

[Eephus]

He's 38 and having a down year. His career counting stats aren't outstanding. He has at least one more year to make a run at 500 HRs but that's not a HoF ticket these days.

Willie Stargell is a good comparison for Ortiz supporters, even down to the Pops-Papi similarities. Their career stats aren't that far apart, particularly if normalizing for era. They both got a lot of credit for their leadership attributes and made very little defensive contribution. Stargell was elected to the Hall in his first year of eligibility although 1988 wasn't a loaded ballot.

 

[Eephus]

Congrats on #500.

It's still a significant milestone.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I personally think steroid guys like bonds and clemens should get in. I also think big papi deserves to be in the hall.

Bonds was a complete player, one of the best OFers of his time and an exponentially better hitter than Ortiz. Clemens was one of the best pitchers in baseball the first day he took the mound at Fenway.

Ortiz hasn't really played the field for well over half his career. If there is a batter HOF he's in, but I really have to subtract a lot of points from him because he is one-dimensional. I'd categorize him with Palmiero and Sosa, not with Bonds or Clemens. Those two should be in the Hall regardless of being juicy or not.

 

[larch]

Still NO on the Hall of Fame.

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

As I type this, Mike Francesa is telling us that Ortiz has no shot at the Hall of Fame.

Which means that they can go ahead and start working on the plaque that shady will never see.

Oh, man. How did I miss this one the first time through?I was trying to come up with a pro wrestling analogy for what you did here, like body slamming your opponent then running over and kicking his manager in the stomach, sending him off the apron.

But the better fit is: piledrove opponent, then jumped the ropes and the rail to find a guy seated ringside but staring at his phone instead of watching the match, and punching him in the face.

 

[the moops]

Ortiz hasn't really played the field for well over half his career. If there is a batter HOF he's in, but I really have to subtract a lot of points from him because he is one-dimensional.

Kind of one-dimensional like all those pitchers that are in the hall?

I doubt he gets in though. I think he will get close for a couple years, but like you say, the DH thing is going to hurt him. If the Sox manage to get to another World Series with Ortiz, and he hits ridiculous like he has (455/576/795), then maybe that is enough to push him over the hump.

 

[Seekay]

I think you have to compare his numbers to Frank Thomas in any case since Thomas was mostly a DH for his career and was never know for his defense if he did play first base.

Difference between the two for me is the memories of Ortiz hitting HRs against Yankees to advance them to the World series when they were down 3-0.

I was never one for Frank Thomas being in the Hall of fame considering he was mostly a DH.

 

[Eephus]

Ortiz is way short of the Big Hurt's career oWAR numbers in large part because he accumulated very few stats during his days with the Twins but also because Thomas was such a great hitter. Ortiz is actualy much closer to Harold Baines' career production than he is to Frank Thomas'.

Ortiz' career numbers are worse than those of Edgar Martinez and Rafael Palmeiro but Papi should do better in HoF voting because of higher visibility and lower PED taint respectively.

 

[the moops]

Good story here about Arod, Griffey, and Ortiz partaking in a random HR derby while in the minors.

Big Papi crushes them fools

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/23177781/video-minorleague-david-ortiz-impresses-arod-junior-in-1996

 

[Seekay]

Ortiz is way short of the Big Hurt's career oWAR numbers in large part because he accumulated very few stats during his days with the Twins but also because Thomas was such a great hitter. Ortiz is actualy much closer to Harold Baines' career production than he is to Frank Thomas'.

Ortiz' career numbers are worse than those of Edgar Martinez and Rafael Palmeiro but Papi should do better in HoF voting because of higher visibility and lower PED taint respectively.

I just dont think any DH should be in the Hall of Fame. As bad as Oritiz dWAR is Thomas's was worse

 

[Green and Gold]

These conversations always baffle me, although I get the PED and DH arguments somewhat. Ortiz has been one of the most famous baseball players on the planet for the last decade and has 3 word series wins. If a player wins 3 superbowls in the NFL, with the equivalent heroics that Ortiz put up in the playoffs, he would be a lock as long has his overall career numbers were reasonable.

They should just make two different lifetime awards for baseball; the Hall of Fame and the Hall of Stats. That way we can stop arguing about this stuff.

 

[the moops]

He is definitely getting in.

 

[Chemical X]

since when are steroid users being allowed in the HOF?

 

[the moops]

since when are steroid users being allowed in the HOF?

its happening. deal

 

[dparker713]

since when are steroid users being allowed in the HOF?

its happening. deal

There's a line, Ortiz can wait.

 

[the moops]

since when are steroid users being allowed in the HOF?

its happening. deal

There's a line, Ortiz can wait.

well of course. he is still playing you know

 

[Michael Brown]

If Ortiz DOES get in, then I assume Bonds, Clemens, Piazza, Bagwell, Palmeiro, Manny, ARod, etc will all go in together as one big happy family

 

[Eephus]

If Ortiz DOES get in, then I assume Bonds, Clemens, Piazza, Bagwell, Palmeiro, Manny, ARod, etc will all go in together as one big happy family

They'll mostly be off the ballot by then. They'll probably eventually get in via some steroid-era veteran's committee after everybody comes to their senses about what happened.

 

[dparker713]

If Ortiz DOES get in, then I assume Bonds, Clemens, Piazza, Bagwell, Palmeiro, Manny, ARod, etc will all go in together as one big happy family

Palmeiro is the poster boy for inflated stats. He rarely put up great seasons relative to his peers, yet there he sits with 3000 and 500.

 

[Eephus]

Announced his retirement at the end of the 2016 season

 

[Annyong]

Announced his retirement at the end of the 2016 season

Good riddance

 

[the moops]

Joe Pos says yes. http://sportsworld.nbcsports.com/david-ortiz-hall-fame-complicated/

David Ortizs full Hall of Fame case is nuanced. His career numbers fall somewhere between Fred McGriff and Frank Thomas, which puts him right on the border. His extra-base hits total is massive some of that is Fenway Park. His postseason heroics boost him considerably. His failed drug test will be considered. And yes, he spent almost his entire career at DH. I think you have to throw all of that into a tumbler, shake it up and roll it out. I vote for him.

 

[Annyong]

He is a huge chode though.

 

[the moops]

He is a huge chode though.

Most professional ballplayers are complete #####

 

[Annyong]

He is a huge chode though.

Most professional ballplayers are complete #####

No way

 

[the moops]

He is a huge chode though.

Most professional ballplayers are complete #####

No way

All of them? That seems a bit harsh