Options
Big Papi
tommyrusty7
Posts: 1,797 ✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Will he fare any better than Shilling and Clemons in the voting for the hall of fame?
0
tommyrusty7
Posts: 1,797 ✭✭✭✭
tommyrusty7
Posts: 1,797 ✭✭✭✭
tommyrusty7
Posts: 1,797 ✭✭✭✭
Comments
Yes. He'll get in.
Probably. Although I think Schilling will get in this year.
Papi is well liked, I say yes
i would say he gets in.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I think he and shilling both get in,
Yeah, I remember him -- wasn't he also known as Big Sloppy?
I see that Papelbon is also on the ballot
"I see that Papelbon is also on the ballot"
Now I remember -- Papelbon was Big Papi and Ortiz was Big Sloppy. And when Papelbon blew a save, it was known as a "Pap Smear".
Yes, he's very popular. Not really enough made of that failed test to hold him back from induction. Not sure on Schilling. Great pitcher; but some vote on political views and that will keep him out.
Papelbon was a complete weirdo and unstable person in my opinion lol
He's literally got the MLB Commissioner going to bat for him despite the positive test. Manfred said it shouldn't be held against him because there were several false positives. Sure thing, Rob.
Papi absolutely gets a free pass in this area, just like Andy Pettite. Ortiz is considered likeable so people just overlook his PED usage.
ESPN had an interesting take. They said he should get in because he wasn't actually that good. Specifically they said that it is easy to excuse the PED usage because unlike Bonds or Clemens he didn't break any "beloved records". To me this is like saying you shouldn't vote for Maris as the 1961 MVP because he used the extra eight games to break a "beloved record". Instead all support should have gone to Mantle because he didn't break any "beloved records" that year.
Bottom line is that Ortiz was and remains very popular, but he just wasn't that good. For a guy who gets 110% of his value from his hitting (fielding was at best a -10%), he just wasn't a good enough hitter.
The Boston Globe (I think) summed it up best: Ortiz has fewer WAR than anyone voted in on the BBWAA ballot since Jim Rice.
He shouldn't get in and it's not even close.
Ortiz will get in. Possibly not first ballot, but he will get in.
Near as I can tell, he's the worst defensive player of the last 80 years. He has ridiculous negative numbers. He has a career -20.9 dWar - while playing 278 games in the field. That's a -12.2 dWAR every 162 games. That's unfathomably bad.
Not necessarily a fair assessment because dWAR includes a position assessment. In 2008 he had -0.9 dWAR despite playing exactly 0 innings in the field. It might be more useful to compare his Runs from Fielding (or RField). If you compare him to a legendarily bad first baseman, say Dick Stuart (known as Dr. Strangeglove). Stuart had an astoundingly bad -6.82 fielding runs per 1000 innings at first base. Ortiz was -7.4. Ortiz played all his defensive innings at first.
So yes, the conclusion is probably correct, but his -20.9 dWAR has to be spread over all 2408 games.
Might take him several tries because of the steroids usage. But might open the door for the other steroid users.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
I watched him for most of his games played for the red sox. as I recall, it wasn't that he had stone hands, it was that his feet were made of concrete and he had zero range.
beyond that, his bat was too important to leave out of the lineup. why penalize him for playing DH, when MLB made that position available? wasn't he perfectly suited for it?
should we penalize johnny bench because he was really good at catching, but not a good center fielder?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
He will get in on the first ballot ! Most people love him for the way he stood up for Boston during the marathon bomging and even the f bomb he dropped during his speech was ignored.
My 2 cents...
I was reluctant to join the post, as I have only an "opinion", as do others, but I think mine is more negative. So, before the flaming begins, I got no dog in the fight, nor do I care to do a back and forth over my miniscule thoughts on the topic, and probably won't respond to any arrows.
Fact...It appears that in 2003, Ortiz failed a PED test, along with a bunch of others. Vehemently denying all this, and vowing to state publicly what the allegations found, he never did. As I did a bit of basic research, Ortiz appears to get very itchy when the subject is brought up.
Could he hit a baseball? Yes
Did he come through in the clutch for the Red Sox when needed? Yes
Was he a good player between the lines? No
Did he make a mini-speech and drop an F-bomb at the same time? Yes. I wonder how many kids heard his comment?
So, assuming the testing is fair and impartial, I am in the camp that if you cheat, you're toast. My viewpoints on this extended to the current Red Sox manager, one Alex Cora, who has just been awarded a 2 year extension and will be with the Red Sox organization for some time. He was proven to be a main character in the Astros-Red Sox sign stealing fiasco. He got a one year suspension and now all is forgiven. I stand by my opinion that he should have been banned from baseball.
These are all grown men, who, before they ingest, or inject anything, IMO, they should check with either the team physician, who knows the rules, or a viable medical person who knows what is allowed and what is not. It is possible that Ortiz took something that he "thought" was ok..."thinking" and "knowing" are two different animals.
It also appears that there is a "selective process" involved when it comes to PED usage. ARod got a one year vacation, but has come out of the fray with some sweet deal with ESPN. He too, and ANYONE ELSE involved with anything that is a violation of MLB rules, or conduct, should be severely punished, and yes, that includes their induction possibilities into the HOF.
NO CHEATER SHOULD GO INTO THE HOF
N O B O D Y
I understand what you are saying and agree with you, but unfortunately we live in a different world today Drugs are getting accepted and swearing is commonplace. I have never even tried any sort of drug in my lifetime, including grass, but have been known to drop a few f bombs here and there.
i agree that anyone who breaks MLB rules should be punished. unfortunately, Steroids were not against the rules until 2005, HGH was 2011 I believe, amphetamine was 2007.
anything before that was fair game
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I don't know what he specific issue is, and I don't care. It is enough for me that he was a terrible defender.
The answer is both of course and of course not. A bad defender shouldn't be "punished", but his defense must be taken into account. Ortiz's complete inability to play any defensive position undoubtedly hurt the Red Sox and Twins. Example: in his first two years in Boston, Manny Ramirez played 138 games as DH. In the five and a fraction between when Ortiz arrived and Ramirez left, he only played 58. The reason this happened was not because Ramirez suddenly became a good defensive leftfielder on his 31st birthday.
No, of course not. If we wish to compare Bench to Puckett, to pick a player at random, we evaluate the offensive contribution, and then add the defensive contribution from each, as a catcher and then a corner infielder, or as a centerfielder and then rightfielder. Surely you'd admit that Bench's offence is more valuable when he's a catcher than a first baseman and similarly Puckett's bat is more valuable in center than in right. Why is this? Because more people can play right than center. Kevin Kiermaier doesn't hit well enough to play a corner outfield position. He has his job because he is likely the best defensive outfielder today. Jorge Soler is required to play a less valuable position, and poorly, so even if his offense is similar or better, his value is far less.
Bottom line is even if there is a place on the roster for a poor defender, he still hurts the team. Even if he's playing a less (or much less) important defensive position.
Trivia on Ortiz, per baseball-reference.com:
Led the AL in doubles once, home runs once, RBI's 3 times, total bases once, OBP once, SA and OPS once (in his final season at age 40).
541 HR's, 1768 RBI's, 2,472 hits, 632 doubles, 1,192 XBH, 4,765 TB.
Never won the MVP, came in 2nd once, 3rd once, 4th twice, 5th once.
10-time All Star.
Hall of Fame Monitor: Batting - 171, Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards: Batting - 55, Average HOFer ≈ 50
All of the above makes me think:
1) He's more of a gray ink candidate than a black ink candidate, and that's problematic for his chances.
2) His traditional stats are pretty much within the range that one would expect from a HOF'er, but he's nowhere near being a top tier candidate. I admit that the nearly 1,200 extra base hits impressed me a little.
I'd go broke betting money on what the baseball writers do in a situation like this. But my best guess:
-Ortiz gets in the HOF.
-Not on the first ballot.
-But not on a late ballot - wild guess is between his 3rd and 5th year of eligibility.
That's not a reason to get into a HOF. Should be what a player did on the field and the ONLY reason.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Rob Manfred confirmed that Ortiz failed that test.
Not from this Yankees fan. Loved Andy but cheating is cheating and he did it. So, it’s really the first thing I think of, more than the great performances.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I'd bet my bank account you didn't use a microphone in centerfield at Fenway Park dropping those F-bombs in front of a SRO crowd, that included God knows how many kids!
Doesn't matter what YOU did, its what Ortiz did. Dropping the F bomb isn't the issue. Loved Ortiz for standing up for Boston?? Really? He's just a ball player, no more, no less. I seriously doubt they all ignored his language. Ortiz's comments didn't impact the situation one way or the other and, better he had just said nothing.
We're talking a failed PED test that will not go unnoticed during the ballot count next year.
Anything before that was fair game ???
So, in your book, gambling on games, (Rose can help here), cheating (get lessons from Cora), shooting anything possible into your body to enhance your performance, taking a payoff to throw a game (Black Sox scandal), is "fair game"? Doing "anything" that wasn't on the books is "fair game".
If you can't play fairly and with integrity, you shouldn't be in the game, any game.
no no no no no.
I mean with regards to PED. not gambling, illegal bats, illegal substances on baseballs or anything else against the rules of MLB.
the discussion has been about PED to this point. until the years I cited above, those substances were absolutely not against the MLB rules.
Yes, if a thing is not in the rule book, it is not "against" the rules and is thus, not "cheating"
look at it this way. If I used a tax credit or "loophole" this tax season that was completely legal and if that same credit or "loophole" was changed for the 2027 tax season, does that mean I "cheated" on my taxes for 2022?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
This doesn't really hold up. It's not against the rules for a player to drive their car onto the field during a game but I imagine they'd get punished for it. Plus, there's catch-all language in player contracts for just that purpose and steroids were illegal before there was a rule.
since 1973, MLB has had a nonstatutory labor exemption. that means that all rules have to be agreed upon by the Union and the league.
while there is no rule for driving a car onto the field, it would have to be addressed at the next CBA. just like all the PED rules.
it is exactly like fay vincent said, there were no rules governing PED until they were Collectively Bargained in the 2000s
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.