# 2014 MLB Hall of Fame Ballot **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [November 26, 2013, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-mlb-hall-of-fame-ballot/674859 "2013-11-26T21:04:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2013, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-mlb-hall-of-fame-ballot/674859/221 "2013-12-31T19:19:23Z")
> [@Bellhorn](#): > > I understand the sabermetric argument that the ninth inning is just 3 outs of _slightly_ higher leverage, but almost every manager seems to disagree. The proper comparison in not “ninth inning versus seventh inning”. It’s “ninth inning in a game that is definitely known to be a close game versus seventh inning in a game which may or may not turn out to be a close game”. It’s a matter of maximizing the use of your best relief pitcher in game-on-line high-impact situations. That said, I think the save stat is one of the most ridiculous stats out there, and is an example of a stat literally distorting people’s thinking, and undermining proper strategy. As one example, in keeping with the above, the optimum time to use an ace relief pitcher would be in a ninth inning tie game, when the game is definitely on the line to win or lose. And keep him in for 3-4 innings if necessary. And as for the possibility that he won’t be able to pitch for the next 3 days, well firstly that’s only a possibility, and second, who says there will be another game-on-the-line situation in the next 3-4 days anyway. But managers don’t manage that way. They keep ace relievers out of the game in that situation, preserving them for possible “save situations”, many of which involve 2-3 run leads in the ninth inning when any half-decent pitcher should be able to get the job done. [Perhaps this is really for a separate thread.] ---
**Author:** ![Bellhorn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@Bellhorn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bellhorn)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2013, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-mlb-hall-of-fame-ballot/674859/222 "2013-12-31T19:29:18Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > … > > I don’t think it’s about WAR. I think it’s about conventional wisdom, fear of criticism, and keeping the players happy. Do you think Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer, in Chicago, worry about conventional wisdom? You don’t think that if they felt a more efficient use of a bullpen projected to a couple more wins that they wouldn’t go for it? I think distrust in WAR exists, just as it’s taken a decade to reach some sort of consensus (and still not definitive) regarding defensive metrics. WAR assumes too much predictable behavior. As an example: I’ve played chess pretty seriously and at a high level of competition. If I’m up against a player that you know has a near-flawless end-game(which is not all that common below the very top level), then I will take more risks before the end game arrives. In a similar fashion, a baseball manager knows that the other teams’ closer is dominant (or is experiencing a dominant stretch of games) then he more is likely to alter his strategy before the 9th inning. And if he knows the other teams closer is lousy, then he’ll play the 7th and 8th inning more conservatively. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2013, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-mlb-hall-of-fame-ballot/674859/223 "2013-12-31T19:34:36Z")
> [@Bellhorn](#): > > Do you think Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer, in Chicago, worry about conventional wisdom? You don’t think that if they felt a more efficient use of a bullpen projected to a couple more wins that they wouldn’t go for it? They’re not managers, so they don’t decide how the pitchers are used. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2013, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-mlb-hall-of-fame-ballot/674859/224 "2013-12-31T19:39:10Z")
I don’t think WAR being precisely correct or not is really the point. Nobody’s making decisions based on WAR individually. Both WAR and the concept of a leverage-based bullpen are both premised on the same fundamental assumptions about what makes something valuable in a baseball game, is all. > [@Bellhorn](#): > > Do you think Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer, in Chicago, worry about conventional wisdom? You don’t think that if they felt a more efficient use of a bullpen projected to a couple more wins that they wouldn’t go for it? > [@](#): > > [Baseball Prospectus](http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2547): One risk that you took last year was an unorthodox relief strategy. In retrospect, do you think it would’ve been more prudent to just go ahead and try it, rather than announcing it beforehand? > > Epstein: Well, we didn’t actually announce it. I think we were too open in responding to questions about it. There’s a difference. I know it’s semantics but it’s a difference nonetheless. I will say this: One of our biggest mistakes of last season, and something we’ve corrected, is that we were just far too open in general. We had too big a circle of information here, too many people who knew what was going on. Word eventually leaked out because we were too open about our plans, and I think it hurt us. That’s a mistake I think we’ve learned from, and we’ve really tightened up our circle of information. We’re playing our cards closer to the vest, and I think that was demonstrated with the Schilling trade, because that was a big deal that caught, I think, the whole world by surprise at the time it was announced. Obviously we didn’t do as good a job when the potential A-Rod trade was discussed so nationally, but that certainly didn’t come out of Boston–that came from somewhere else. > > In retrospect, if I could do last year’s bullpen over again, for starters I hope I’d do a better job putting together quality relievers. I didn’t do a very good job. No matter what we said about it, I didn’t have the right guys in here to get the job done. > > I think both sides of the debate missed a big issue. The general public and traditional media thought we were trying to do a “bullpen by committee,” a revolutionary idea. They decided to just blame the whole thing on Bill James, and got it all wrong. On the other side, the new school guys like yourself thought, great, they’re not going to overpay for saves, and they’re going to try to apply what Bill wrote about the ace reliever and unconventional usage to create the “optimal bullpen.” The truth was really somewhere in the middle. > > In a vacuum, I’d love to try to create optimal bullpen usage and create a small competitive advantage–small–by doing that. But that’s in a vacuum. I don’t think this is the right time or place to try it, and we didn’t have the right personnel to try it. We didn’t have a dominant reliever. In reality, what happened was we made a conscious decision not to overpay for Ugie Urbina. And we were trying to trade Shea Hillenbrand for Byung-Hyun Kim. But it didn’t work (at the time); we couldn’t get it done during the off-season. We came close, but they wanted a prospect. We thought eventually it would get done, and it did get done–in May. So we basically had a bullpen without a dominant reliever, and that’s not going to work too often. And it didn’t work. > > BP: So now you’ve got your dominant reliever. > > Epstein: I think we have several now. I hope we have several. But yeah, certainly Keith Foulke should be dominant. > > BP: Will we see Foulke trade 15 easy save opportunities for 15 tie-game, higher-leverage appearances? > > Epstein: Maybe. I think where we stand right now is that the best way to try to improve bullpen usage is to try to have your best pitcher throw the most important innings possible. It’s going to be really hard to say “OK, we’re going to use him in the seventh and eighth inning and let someone else pitch the ninth.” What we’re going to do is be very aggressive using him in the eighth inning in close, big situations–tie games and one-run games–and let him pitch both the eighth and ninth. Hopefully he’ll pitch more innings. We’ll be aggressive using him in tie games, and aggressive using him for multiple innings. And that will shift his usage enough that I hope it will be improved. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2013, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-mlb-hall-of-fame-ballot/674859/225 "2013-12-31T19:55:09Z")
> [@Gray\_Ghost](#): > > I agree with this. But how many middle relievers are getting considered for the Hall? This is a circular argument, though, because elite relief pitchers end up as “closers,” no matter if it makes sense to use them that way or not. If a pitcher went out and put up twelve or fifteen years of seasons like Mark Eichhorn’s in 1986, they’d get some votes. But if you put up just two or three seasons like that someone would make you a closer. ---
**Author:** ![Bellhorn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@Bellhorn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bellhorn)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2013, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-mlb-hall-of-fame-ballot/674859/226 "2013-12-31T20:14:43Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > The proper comparison in not “ninth inning versus seventh inning”. It’s “ninth inning in a game that is definitely known to be a close game versus seventh inning in a game which may or may not turn out to be a close game”. It’s a matter of maximizing the use of your best relief pitcher in game-on-line high-impact situations. > > That said, I think the save stat is one of the most ridiculous stats out there, and is an example of a stat literally distorting people’s thinking, and undermining proper strategy. > > As one example, in keeping with the above, the optimum time to use an ace relief pitcher would be in a ninth inning tie game, when the game is definitely on the line to win or lose. And keep him in for 3-4 innings if necessary. And as for the possibility that he won’t be able to pitch for the next 3 days, well firstly that’s only a possibility, and second, who says there will be another game-on-the-line situation in the next 3-4 days anyway. > > But managers don’t manage that way. They keep ace relievers out of the game in that situation, preserving them for possible “save situations”, many of which involve 2-3 run leads in the ninth inning when any half-decent pitcher should be able to get the job done. > > [Perhaps this is really for a separate thread.] At the risk of boring you with another chess analogy, “Sometimes the threat is more dangerous than the execution.” – Dr. Emmanuel Lasker. And so managers often prefer to hold onto their threat. And, of course, they don’t know that the game will NOT be on the line in the 9th inning and they would look pretty stupid having some 22 year old rookie with control problems closing out a tight game. And I’m sure that fear causes most managers to be over cautious. But managers don’t know, at the time, that they’re facing the critical situation in a game – that’s only known after the game has ended. So, for instance, they might not bring in their lefty specialist in the 7th inning of a tie game, because they fear that David Ortiz might come up the next inning and they’d already used their lefty. (I agree that this is a topic for a new thread, but this line of argument was started in relation to WAR and how it devalued closer-candidates’ chances for election. We might have beat this one to death, i think) ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2013, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-mlb-hall-of-fame-ballot/674859/227 "2013-12-31T20:32:31Z")
> [@Bellhorn](#): > > And, of course, they don’t know that the game will NOT be on the line in the 9th inning and they would look pretty stupid having some 22 year old rookie with control problems closing out a tight game. That guy shouldn’t be in a tight game at all, but it still makes more sense to have him start the ninth inning in a close game than it does to use him in a jam earlier in the game while your best reliever sits on the bench. You are clearly not using your relievers to maximum effect if you refuse to use your best reliever unless it’s the start of the ninth inning and your team is already winning, and that is basically what every manager does. ---
**Author:** ![Bellhorn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@Bellhorn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bellhorn)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2013, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-mlb-hall-of-fame-ballot/674859/228 "2013-12-31T20:47:00Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > That guy shouldn’t be in a tight game at all, but it still makes more sense to have him start the ninth inning in a close game than it does to use him in a jam earlier in the game while your best reliever sits on the bench. You are clearly not using your relievers to maximum effect if you refuse to use your best reliever unless it’s the start of the ninth inning and your team is already winning, and that is basically what every manager does. Yeah, I understand your point in that specific scenario, but earlier in the game, the manager has more options than closer/22 year old kid. But what the manager fears is that by the time the 9th inning rolls along, he’s out of options. Back when I was a kid, and roles were not quite as defined, in a close game, the best reliever came in whenever the starter was gassed. btw, way back before the modern pen setup was established, the best reliever would always come in if the game was tied or close, whenever the starter was gassed – whether it be in the 6th, 7th, 8th or 9th. Look up Dick Radatz’ career with the Red Sox. But, back then, that guy kept on pitching until the end of the game or until he’d given away the lead. That kind of usage is why Radatz’ prime was only 3 years. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2013, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-mlb-hall-of-fame-ballot/674859/229 "2013-12-31T20:52:02Z")
You do see closers coming in for four and five out saves more than you used to. The argument that if a reliever were really all that good he’d be starting, since it’s the same inning times seven or so, is misbegotten. For one inning, a pitcher can reach back and give it everything on every pitch, ideally striking out the side. For seven innings, no, he can’t. He has to pace himself, use more than one or two pitches, depend on his fielders, use different strategy in general. If relieving were really only starting for a single inning, then why aren’t \*all \*relievers former starters? The top performers _at their positions_ at the time they played belong in the Hall. Relievers and starters do play different positions and need to be compared \*within \*their peer groups. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2013, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-mlb-hall-of-fame-ballot/674859/230 "2013-12-31T21:06:02Z")
> [@Bellhorn](#): > > But what the manager fears is that by the time the 9th inning rolls along, he’s out of options. Sort of: he fears being criticized because that’s what happens if you buck the norm and it doesn’t work out. In reality you’re almost never out of options in the 9th inning. The issue here, to me, is that using closers this way makes them less valuable. That makes it harder for a closer to be Hall-worthy. I’m not that impressed by Lee Smith’s Hall of Fame case and I’m not sure I’ll be impressed by Trevor Hoffman’s. If managers start using closers in more difficult situations, it’ll be easier to identify and then reward the closers who really excel. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You do see closers coming in for four and five out saves more than you used to. Do you have a cite? I thought the trend was still solidly in favor of the three-out save. ---
**Author:** ![Bellhorn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@Bellhorn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bellhorn)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2013, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-mlb-hall-of-fame-ballot/674859/231 "2013-12-31T21:40:58Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The top performers _at their positions_ at the time they played belong in the Hall. Relievers and starters do play different positions and need to be compared \*within \*their peer groups. Really? It always made sense to me why there used to be a lot more SS in the HOF than second basemen. Because a lot of MLB second baseman began at short, but then were converted to 2B because of limited range or insufficient arm strength. I knew that because I played 2B in HS and college, because, although I was a very good ballplayer, I wasn’t a very good athlete. Then, about 40 years ago, someone noticed there were only 8 2B in the HOF and there became a push to get more elected/selected. Bobby Doerr’s vet selection in the 80’s really surprised me, and I’m a Red Sox fan. I think currently there are 24 Shortstops and 20 Second baseman, when it used to be closer to 2-1. So your opinion may be in line with that of the BBWA, I’d rather have a top fielding SS with an OPS of .800 than a 2B with similar rankings amongst his peers. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2013, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-mlb-hall-of-fame-ballot/674859/232 "2013-12-31T22:01:47Z")
There’s a general consensus that SS is a more valuable position than 2B defensively, but you need both. I think it’s a mistake to assume Hall voters are employing any particular logic, especially if you’re looking at a long period of time. Standards and voting keep changing and sometimes people are just left out. By my count there are 11 Major League third basemen in the Hall of Fame because voters still aren’t sure how to compare third basemen to their peers. Anyway this is kind of apples and oranges. Pitcher is a position and closer is a role, while 2B and SS are both positions. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2013, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-mlb-hall-of-fame-ballot/674859/233 "2013-12-31T22:05:39Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You do see closers coming in for four and five out saves more than you used to. The percentage of more-than-an-inning saves in 2013 was the lowest it’s ever been, 12.4%. ---
**Author:** ![Bellhorn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@Bellhorn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bellhorn)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2013, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-mlb-hall-of-fame-ballot/674859/234 "2013-12-31T22:08:14Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > … > Anyway this is kind of apples and oranges. Pitcher is a position and closer is a role, while 2B and SS are both positions. And the BBWA still haven’t figured out Designated Hitter. There’s going to be a sh\*t storm ‘a brewin’ five years after David Ortiz retires, particularly if he has a couple more good years before quitting time. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2013, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-mlb-hall-of-fame-ballot/674859/235 "2013-12-31T22:20:08Z")
> [@Bellhorn](#): > > And the BBWA still haven’t figured out Designated Hitter. I don’t think that’s true at all. There have been very few career DHs who deserved any consideration at all. Who do you think deserves to be in the Hall who was mostly a DH? There’s an argument to be made for Edgar Martinez and… who else? And while Martinez was a great player, his omission is not exactly a major offense. He’s buried in a huge class and he’s not obviously better than, say, Larry Walker or Tim Raines, so it’s not like they’re leaving out a first-ballot lock like Randy Johnson. So what, really, isn’t figured out? For that matter, who poses a problem in the future? Big Papi is a great hitter but even he is not a particularly obvious first-ballot choice; he has no defensive value, hasn’t attained any major statistical milestones that scream “gotta be in the Hall” and is generally, like Edgar, a guy who will end up in the mix of a lot of players who were just as good and maybe better. ---
**Author:** ![Bellhorn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@Bellhorn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bellhorn)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2013, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-mlb-hall-of-fame-ballot/674859/236 "2013-12-31T22:23:48Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > There’s a general consensus that SS is a more valuable position than 2B defensively, but you need both. I think it’s a mistake to assume Hall voters are employing any particular logic, especially if you’re looking at a long period of time. Standards and voting keep changing and sometimes people are just left out. By my count there are 11 Major League third basemen in the Hall of Fame because voters still aren’t sure how to compare third basemen to their peers. Joe Gordon, Bobby Doerr, Bill Mazeroski, Tony Lazzeri, Red Schoendist, Bid McPhee, and Frank Grant (Negro Leagues) were all chosen by veterans committees in the past 20 years or so, and I’m pretty sure it was in response to the idea that 2B were under-represented. Over a third of all 2B were by vets committee picks in the last 20 years, and only McPhee was from an era before the HOF, and Grant was special case, as well. Add to that group Alomar, Sandberg and Carew, and that’s 50% of all the 2B in the HOF. So clearly the perceived value of 2B has grown. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2013, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-mlb-hall-of-fame-ballot/674859/237 "2013-12-31T23:35:00Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > The percentage of more-than-an-inning saves in 2013 was the lowest it’s ever been, 12.4%. But by the team’s designated _closer_, though, not the long-relief guy who came in with a three-run lead back in the seventh, and was kept in because the rest of the bullpen was gassed that day and he was doing OK? I’m referring to the guy who’s the alleged key getter-outer supreme, the one who normally sees the ninth and only that. Yes, it may be only my impression that some closers are getting stretched a bit lately. Maybe 2B is easier than SS, but so is 3B, 1B, and the outfield. But there are quite a few of those guys in the Hall, including many who never played SS at all. Go figure. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2014, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-mlb-hall-of-fame-ballot/674859/238 "2014-01-01T00:25:34Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > In reality you’re almost never out of options in the 9th inning. Truth is that you sometimes are, due to another dubious trend these days, i.e. the hyperfocus on righty-lefty matchups. You sometimes see managers use 3 pitchers in the seventh inning as they do the righty-lefty rotation, and by the time they get to the ninth they have no one left other than the closer, who can’t go more than an inning … ---
**Author:** ![Bellhorn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@Bellhorn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bellhorn)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2014, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-mlb-hall-of-fame-ballot/674859/239 "2014-01-01T01:48:01Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > I don’t think that’s true at all. There have been very few career DHs who deserved any consideration at all. Who do you think deserves to be in the Hall who was mostly a DH? There’s an argument to be made for Edgar Martinez and… who else? > > And while Martinez was a great player, his omission is not exactly a major offense. He’s buried in a huge class and he’s not obviously better than, say, Larry Walker or Tim Raines, so it’s not like they’re leaving out a first-ballot lock like Randy Johnson. > > So what, really, isn’t figured out? For that matter, who poses a problem in the future? Big Papi is a great hitter but even he is not a particularly obvious first-ballot choice; he has no defensive value, hasn’t attained any major statistical milestones that scream “gotta be in the Hall” and is generally, like Edgar, a guy who will end up in the mix of a lot of players who were just as good and maybe better. What really hasn’t been figured out is whether DH is a role or a position, per your original comment about closers. Assuming Ortiz has a couple more productive years, when he retires half of the BBWA are consider him a slam dunk for the HOF, 20% are never going to put a lifetime DH in the Hall and 30% will be persuadable. E. Martinez is suffering from relatively the same split, although Ortiz will have to his advantage his postseason success in a big market. But the Ortiz advocates will still have to convince 5 out 6 undecided voters to come to their side. (My case against Ortiz would be that he was put at DH not because he couldn’t field the position, but to extend his career – which it apparently has.) And the reason there aren’t that many DH exclusions from the HOF, are a) the DH is only 40 years old b) There are few cases of a player, still in his prime, being made a permanent DH. ---
**Author:** ![BlankSlate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blankslate/32/80_2.png) [@BlankSlate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlankSlate)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2014, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-mlb-hall-of-fame-ballot/674859/240 "2014-01-01T04:08:07Z")
You’re overlooking the fact that Ortiz will be lumped into the suspected PED user pool along with Palmiero, McGwire, Sosa, and the rest. It’s probably going to be a long road to the Hall for Ortiz, and unless he has a few more monster years, his case will be less compelling than Edgar Martinez’s. His career WAR, and I know it’s a flawed measurement, as it stands is not Hall worthy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-mlb-hall-of-fame-ballot/674859.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-mlb-hall-of-fame-ballot/674859.md?page=13)