….which automatically invalidates the MLB Hall of Fame. It’s now a mockery, and clearly just a popularity. In case you forgot, he was on the same leaked list of PED positives as Alex Rodriguez, who was 10 times the player.
The Baseball Hall of Fame is just a sad and tired joke now. Letting in players recently far from the qualifications and now a cheating DH.
So why not Pete?
Because he violated what use to be the long standing golden rule of the MLB. But let’s keep this about Ortiz and PEDs and not devolve into a Pete Rose thing again.
Just trying to establish the degree of cheating vs player ability permissible to get into the MLB Hall of Fame. I’ll bow out.
Stats to back that up, please?
Evidence that Papi used PEDs, please?
Same report that had A-Rod on it.
Are we really playing the game that Ortiz wasn’t a PED user?
According to ESPN: "A 2009 New York Times story reported that Ortiz was among 104 players who tested positive for performance-enhancing substances during a round of tests conducted in 2003. Those results were supposed to remain confidential and were done to see if the league had reached a threshold to conduct regular testing.
"Ortiz has long denied that he used banned substances, and in 2016, commissioner Rob Manfred said the tests in question were inconclusive because ‘it was hard to distinguish between certain substances that were legal, available over the counter, and not banned under our program.’
“Manfred added that during subsequent testing Ortiz ‘has never been a positive at any point under our program’.”
50 year Red Sox fan here. I suspect every player in the early 2000’s was using some form of PED. How those differ, in principle, from the uppers/greenies Mantle, et al, were using earlier is up for debate. But there is no arguing that Ortiz is not one of the most important players of the last 20 years. And being important to the game, and really f’ing good, is enough for me to get him into the HOF. FTR I think Bonds and Clemons should be in too.
I don’t any issues with Big Papi in the Hall - his performance was well-worthy of recognition, and the story of baseball in the 2000s is incomplete without his inclusion. The list he was on was far from conclusive, and frankly, I don’t a crap about PEDs. Everyone was doing them, the league turned a blind eye, and players had been using drugs to elevate their game for many decades before him without anyone caring one single wit (whit?). I’ll agree with the OP - it’s simply a popularity contest, as there’s no distinguishing disqualifying characteristic between Ortiz and the better players of Arod, Bonds and Clemens above him, other than he isn’t an asshole.
“10 times the player” is hyperbole, but looking at their advanced states on Baseball Reference:
- Career bWAR of 117.5 (translates to an average seasonal bWAR of 6.8)
- 7-year peak bWAR of 64.3
- Eight seasons with a bWAR of 8+ (which is generally considered to be an MVP-caliber season)
- JAWS rating (a measure of HOF worthiness) of 90.9
- Career bWAR of 55.3 (average seasonal bWAR of 3.7)
- 7-year peak bWAR of 35.2
- Four seasons with a bWAR of 5+; highest season was 6.4 in 2007
- JAWS rating of 45.3
Sorry, I don’t understand any of those. BA, RBI, HR, please.
You should learn what they are if you want to have an informed discussion about baseball.
Are you serious? You honestly think Ortiz is in the same class as A-Rod?
A quick look shows that A-hole Rod did better in my categories. I guess it helps not to be an a-hole.
Well, WAR (wins above replacement) is a measure which is used to evaluate the relative contributions of players who contribute in different ways. An 8.0 WAR score indicates that said player’s team would have won approximately 8 fewer games that season, if the player had not been there, and his spot in the lineup would have been taken by a “replacement-level player” (that is, essentially, a player from AAA), while a WAR of 0 would indicate that the player contributed nothing above and beyond what would have been contributed by a guy called up from the minors to replace him.
WAR indicates that, both on a yearly basis, and over the course of his career, Rodriguez contributed more to his teams’ success than Ortiz did.
But, here you go:
Rodriguez: .295 BA, 696 HR, 2086 RBI, 3 MVP awards, 2 Gold Glove awards, 10 Silver Slugger awards, 1 batting title
Ortiz: .286 BA, 541 HR, 1768 RBI, 3 Silver Slugger awards
I’m from Seattle so you can probably guess what I think about A-Rod, but if you just go by stats he was really freaking good.
To be clear, my issue is with lack of consistent criteria. I say those that tested positive after PED’s were officially banned should be ineligible. Before that, well, there is at least some evidence of implicit approval by the higher powers of MLB, so they should all be allowed in if they deserve.
What makes Ortiz’s inclusion (a borderline HOF’er well below the level of A-Rod, Clemens, and Bonds) so ironic is that it basically invalidates the Hall of Fame itself. Kind of like “I wouldn’t join a club that would have me as a member”.
ETA: I should add that, while I’m a Yankee fan, I have no issues with Ortiz himself. I’m sure I’d be a fan of his if he were a Yankee. But 1st ballot Hall of Fame he’s not. Especially because he was one-dimensional.
I am god damn thrilled Bonds and Clemens got rejected. I’m not super happy about Ortiz getting in , but It’s a stubbed toe kind of misfortune.
I do think he got a weird kind of grading-on-the-curve based on nobody getting in last year. I think just enough guys didn’t want to have two-year years without a winner, that it pushed them to allow a borderline PED case, but well-liked guy in.
31 players in MLB history have career WAR’s of over 100. 3 of them (all in the Top 16) are Bonds, Clemens and Rodriguez. The other 28 are in the Hall of Fame.
And while the obvious argument is that their use of PED’s contributed to their high WAR’s, it’s very probable that the majority of the other players in that era were also using PED’s at points in their careers. I’ve always maintained that I wouldn’t be surprised if even Jeter and Mo tried them at some point.