Ortiz 500 HR = HOF?

It's called the BASEBALL hall of fame not the BASEBALL HITTER/FIELDER AND PITCHER hall of fame. Last time I checked the DH was part of the game. The voters don't really consider pitchers batting statistics or fielding as criteria so why should the fact DH's don't play the field be held against them. If they are one of the best hitters of their era, they deserve to be in, at least in this fans opinion. Of course I don't vote. YMMV.

Yes it's called the baseball Hall of Fame, and part of playing baseball, if you're a position player, is playing defense. Designated hitters completely eschew participation in that part, and are, thus, part-time/incomplete players...and part-time incomplete players have no place in the Hall of Fame.

And your comparison to pitchers' hitting and fielding is both a specious and an inapt one. Pitchers' haven't been judged on their hitting or fielding for almost a century. Baseball people and writers correctly see their production there as a bonus to what they accomplish on the mound, not 1/2 of their expected game or even close to it. So, it is not an apt comparison. An outstanding pitcher who doesn't hit or field particularly well is still a complete and outstanding pitcher. A DH who spends most of his time in the dugout without playing defense is not a complete player.

So, excellent full-time DH's deserve the accolades they receive for their excellent hitting, but, as part-time/incomplete players without a position, they don't deserve a place in the HOF.

Quoting me isn't engaging me??

Please give me one of your long winded SAT vocabulary word filled explanations for that???

and I'm not flustered, I simply don't want to debate, As I've said before, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results... I'm sure you know the rest.

Quoting me isn't engaging me??

Please give me one of your long winded SAT vocabulary word filled explanations for that???

See what I said; you just proved me right with your bug eyes...flustered as always.

And I quoted your engagement of my post, so you have clearly forgotten who responded to whom first as well...

Quoting me isn't engaging me??

Please give me one of your long winded SAT vocabulary word filled explanations for that???

See what I said; you just proved me right with your bug eyes...flustered as always.

And I quoted your engagement of my post, so you have clearly forgotten who responded to whom first as well...

The bugs eyes, means I'm shocked not flustered, Shocked that you think quoting me isn't engaging me.

All I did was answer the original poster's question, My post is only related to whatever you wrote because we are discussing the same topic. I didn't quote you, I didn't respond directly after you, I didn't use your name.

I simply gave my opinion.

PS thanks for sparing me the long winded explanation.

I'm going to bed now, as it's late on the east coast and the game is and the football game is all but over. Stupid Giants.

For someone who doesn't want to debate me, you sure can't shut up and stop debating me...

The bug eyes meant you're shocked and flustered over what shouldn't shock and fluster you: my engaging your engagement of my post. It doesn't matter if you quoted me, I made the only anti-Ortiz post and you engaged it.

And please go to bed, Niners, you definitely need the rest.

Dude's been tested over 80 times for PED's over the past 5 years, minimum, and hasn't tested positive once. Not sure he's a HOFer but the "he tested positive 10 years ago" is a stupid bullshit argument for keeping him out. Just horrifically simple, and incorrect moral reasoning about a complex issue. Unsurprising though.

Oritz has about as a good a case as Jim Rice for the HOF, which means he shouldn't really get in, but it's hard to say he's not deserving if he does. Greatest postseason clutch hitter of his generation over a large postseason sample size. That counts for a cherry on top the same way that Schilling's postseason performance does/should.

Edgar Martinez deserves to get in before Papi though.

Dude's been tested over 80 times for PED's over the past 5 years, minimum, and hasn't tested positive once. Not sure he's a HOFer but the "he tested positive 10 years ago" is a stupid bullshit argument for keeping him out.

Nobody said "he tested positive ten years ago" was a sole argument for keeping him out. So, relax and remember we're talking baseball, not politics. However, it certainly doesn't help the case of a hitter who was a dh for most of his career while hardly ever playing the field.

Just horrifically simple, and incorrect moral reasoning about a complex issue. Unsurprising though.

So, what is actually horrifically simple is your completely misrepresenting my entire argument. Unsurprising though.

Oritz has about as a good a case as Jim Rice for the HOF, which means he shouldn't really get in, but it's hard to say he's not deserving if he does. Greatest postseason clutch hitter of his generation over a large postseason sample size. That counts for a cherry on top the same way that Schilling's postseason performance does/should.

No, he doesn't. Jim Rice actually played the field, Ortiz barely ever did. For my argument concerning that issue, go see my first two posts where I presented them clearly. As to your "cherry"--is the player a sundae?--playoff performance alone is never legitimate merit for HOF inclusion...go ask Don Larsen. And Schilling isn't in the HOF yet and probably never will be, so bringing him up certainly doesn't help your argument.

No, of course I was right...but you're close.

Here is where strether's argument falls very flat. He claims wrongly that Ortiz should not be in because he doesn't play defense and you have to do both in his eyes in order to get in the HOF. Tell me then......How could any pitcher who played most or all of his career in the AL ever get in the HOF? They weren't a complete player because they hardly batted. You could say that pitchers are different because they are only judged on their pitching. How is the reverse not true for a player that was primarily a DH then? You can't have it both ways.

As long as the position of DH is in the baseball rule book then those players should not be biased against. If not for the DH position Frank Thomas would not have had as good of numbers as he ended up with as he was primarily a DH for many years.

Edgar Martinez and David Ortiz are two of the best all-time DH's and should be be in or out of the HOF based on their batting stats without penalty for not playing defense.

No, of course I was right...but you're close.

SIGH Whatever floats your boat. As I stated its my opinion. I'm clearly as entitled to my opinion as you are to yours.
I answered what I perceived was the original posters question(s).
I have no desire to be in a debate with you because you are always right and you always win. Please just don't respond to my posts unless I specially address you or yours. We'll both be happier that way, no wait. Only I'll be happier that way.

HE THINKS HE ALWAYS IS RIGHT, AND ITS ALREADY BEEN PROVEN ELSEWHERE THAT THIS IS NOT THE CASE. LET THE WHINER HAVE HIS WAY, IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH HIM, HE WILL JUST BE THE COWARD THAT HE IS AND WALK AWAY AS HE USUALLY DOES.

NOW LET THE STALKER THAT HE IS START COPY/PASTING FROM MILLIONS OF MESSAGES THAT HE HAS....YOU KNOW ITS COMING.

MY 2 CENTS IS THAT HE SHOULD BE IN THE HOF BUT THE LEAKED PED ISSUE MAY HAVE A SERIOUS IMPACT ON HIM GETTING IN UNFORTUNATELY, BEST DH WE HAVE SEEN HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE GAME AND A FEW WS TITLES HELPS HIS CASE.

No, of course I was right...but you're close.

Here is where strether's argument falls very flat. He claims wrongly that Ortiz should not be in because he doesn't play defense and you have to do both in his eyes in order to get in the HOF. Tell me then......How could any pitcher who played most or all of his career in the AL ever get in the HOF? They weren't a complete player because they hardly batted. You could say that pitchers are different because they are only judged on their pitching. How is the reverse not true for a player that was primarily a DH then? You can't have it both ways.

As long as the position of DH is in the baseball rule book then those players should not be biased against. If not for the DH position Frank Thomas would not have had as good of numbers as he ended up with as he was primarily a DH for many years.

Edgar Martinez and David Ortiz are two of the best all-time DH's and should be be in or out of the HOF based on their batting stats without penalty for not playing defense.

Hit the ball right on the screws here LM, that's exactly how I feel about the issue too.

As long as the position of DH is in the baseball rule book then those players should not be biased against. If not for the DH position Frank Thomas would not have had as good of numbers as he ended up with as he was primarily a DH for many years.

Edgar Martinez and David Ortiz are two of the best all-time DH's and should be be in or out of the HOF based on their batting stats without penalty for not playing defense.

Hit the ball right on the screws here LM, that's exactly how I feel about the issue too.

Agreed! (and I'm a Yankee fan)