Jeff Passan on David Ortiz's HOF credentials

Sheffield is a little more than borderline but stands no chance with the writers and will follow Albert Belle's path off the ballot.

 

True. When Sheff came up with Milwaukee, he was a talented kid who just didn't get it. When he finally got it, it was at the end of his career. Joey Belle was just an a-hole to the 10th power and enjoyed being one. Martinez was a good guy and a good stick. I'd love to see him in the Hall. Ortiz has mastered being a DH and with three more solid years, he could be worthy of a spot in Cooperstown.

 

I think Sheffield will get much more consideration than Belle, who was two-and-done on the ballot. I don't think Belle is a Hall of Fame guy, but Sheffield is at least a borderline case. Belle had five all-star years, from 26 to 30, then in an insane year in Chicago at age 31, then he was done in Baltimore after two years, although he was still a productive player at the end. (281 / 342 / 474, OPS+ of 109 in 141 games. In fact, I had forgotten his last year was that good, and that it was only because of a hip condition that he had to retire.)

Because he hung around for longer, Sheffield made nine all-star teams, and generally has the counting stats (500+ HR) that suggest induction. By most of the computerized Hall of Fame evaluation stats, he's at a little bit lower than the average for RF HOF. He's crowded around guys like Dwight Evans, Reggie Smith, Sosa, Abreu, Winfield, etc. Some of them have made it in already, some haven't and won't, and I imagine Sheffield won't because of all the "extra" going on with his off the field stuff.

Re: Ortiz, I think the narrative will solidly push him into the Hall, unless something more damning involving steroids comes out. If you judge him as a 1B, he's probably the lowest non-Veteran's Committee 1B to get in: http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_1B.shtml

 

Sheffield numbers:

1636 runs
2689 hits
467 doubles
27 triples
509 home runs
1676 RBI
253 stolen bases
1475 walks
.292 AVG
.393 OBP
.514 SLG
140 OPS+
4737 Total Bases
63.3 WAR
1946 Runs Created

He had just 5 5+ WAR seasons, just 8 at 4+ and 12 at 3+, with a peak of 7.6 largely because he was a poor fielder (-180 runs at position) who played corner outfield.

I'm not saying I would not take a player with 63 WAR, but with personality and PED issues, he's a borderline guy for me.

Now I would not rate a fielder worse overall than the runs deducted if he had been a DH for an entire season which is about -14 per 162 games. He played an equivalent of 16 full seasons, so I wouldn't dock him more than 228 for defense AND position and he gets -180 for defense and -95 for position for a total of -275, so I'd give him back about 47 runs when evaluating his "greatness", but thats about half a WAR.

 

Mastered being a DH? You are treating it as if it is an actual position. It is the lack of a position, something that should only be a negative in the evaluation of the player.

 

I think Ortiz is like Petitte, a shaky case built on borderline numbers bolstered by postseason success, wrecked by steroids.

 

Have you ever tried hitting a 95 MPH fastball? How about a slider that falls off the plate or a curve that breaks right at your waist. Martinez mastered hitting those pitches and Ortiz is mastering hitting those pitches. Being a DH is just that, hitting. You're not there for defense.

 

So say he was a great hitter. Or that he mastered hitting. Not that he mastered being a DH as if that is some sort of accomplishment. It isn't. There is no art to it. There is nothing special about it. It is a weakness in the player's game that either due to injury or ineptitude, his team cannot regularly use him on defense. It is ridiculous to try to paint that as a positive.

I never said hitting was easy. That's a manipulative misrepresentation of what I wrote. Thankfully, most people around here have the sense to know better.

 

Being a DH involves a little bit more than just going up there hitting a ball. And if it were as simple as you claim it is, the DH on every American League team would be hitting .300 or better. That isn't the case.
I've noticed several things about your posts. For starters you THINK you know what you're posting about. (2) You like to throw others into your posts either by name or alluding to them. (3) You like to debate. (4) You have to get in the final word.

 

Why would every DH hit .300? I thought you said hitting wasn't easy.

All hitting involves more than just going up and hitting a ball. That is true for players who actually play a position and for those who do not. There is nothing required of a DH that isn't required of those who play the field as well. Perhaps the ability to focus despite sitting much of the game, but overall the player who actually fields a position is doing more than the DH.

There is no art or skill to being a designated hitter. There is a lack of other skills, but nothing more.

 

You say "vindictive," I say discerning, conservative, respectful of those who played before the PED "era" and studied.

As far as I know, no alleged PED user has had the clock run out on his eligibility yet. Not McGwire, not Sosa, not any of them. Those 15 years to evaluate, in absolute terms and in context, belong to the voters. Fans can stomp their feet if someone isn't red-carpeted in on a first ballot but the process doesn't require that and frankly suggests that long-term analysis is welcomed.

I'm using the time frame we've been given, period. If someone bumps up against elimination in his 15th year, that's when rubber needs to meet road. I'll face a decision. (In my years of voting, only failed to cast a vote for one player who ultimately got in via BBWAA. I've tended to be generous in filling out ballots, not one of those blank-ballot pricks.)

Also, it's not punishing someone to deny them a privilege. No one is entitled to HOF enshrinement, even through the compiling of particular statistics. Some otherwise deserving players may exclude themselves via decisions and behavior. And regarding MLB's handling of the initial testing, it is possible for both baseball hierarchy and the players who tested positive to have done wrong there.

I still feel much of this comes down to uneasiness that we've had creep into society with the whole notion of judging. Well, then, let's just institute a menu of statistical thresholds or milestones (or combinations of them) that trigger automatic enshrinement. Won't need voters at all. The joint in Cooperstown would just be a brick-and-mortar place to do a baseball-reference.com filtered search. "All those with > 3,000 hits and > 500 HR or > 4.25 SO/BB ratio..."

As for the original question in position terms only, I don't think a guy's DH-ness should negatively work against him. He just doesn't get "extra" consideration for defensive contributions, putting more onus on his career hitting performance and impact. No problem with DHs getting enshrined.

 

It's not a matter of holding DH-ness against him. It's a matter of asking him to do more because he was making less of a contribution than the players with positions.

"Using the time frame" is failing to vote for somebody who belongs. it's an excuse rather than admitting you are exacting your pound of flesh.

Denying somebody a privilege is absolutely a form of punishment. Ask any parent. if you are a parent, haven't you ever taken away the privilege to watch television or engage in some other activity as a punishment. If you wish to keep fooling yourself on this point, that is your right, but nobody else should buy into it.

I do agree that it is possible for both the baseball hierarchy and the players who tested positive to have done wrong. In fact, that was the primary point I was making in the post you responded to.

And your first line is, at best, unfair to those who disagree with you. It is possible to be discerning, conservative and respectful to players from all areas and disagree with you. To say otherwise is the truly disrespectful behavior here.

My primary issue with your approach is not punishing guys like Ortiz, who clearly cheated. If a player failed a PED test or admitted guilt, it should certainly be factored into the decision regarding whether or not the player deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. I'm not sure I agree that it should disqualify that player, but I can understand the argument.

My issue is with punishing players when the proof does not exist. The standard of evidence that you and some other voters are using when deciding who to keep out for PED use is inappropriately low. If you can't prove it, you shouldn't be using it. Waiting for proof that does not exist now and is unlikely to come out later is just an excuse.