Ortiz 500 HR = HOF?

I am biased as I just watched the ESPN 30-30 about the comeback vs the Yankees for at least tenth time. Very good career, one of the all-time post season heroes and 500 HR's = HOF?

No. He has had an excellent offensive career, but he hasn't been a full-time player who also contributed defensively. His testing positive in 2004 doesn't help matters either.

To me, not playing the field is not an issue. DH is a position, like it or not. Someone has to do it. Molitor is in and while he played in the field at the beginning of his career, he was bad at every position he played. If you are one of the handful of best DH's over a forty year period, shouldn't you get in? Are they like kickers in football? Even if they are, a few more should get in. Ray Guy, Jan Steneroud and maybe Mort Anderson and Viniteri. Molitor, Ortiz and maybe Edgar Martinez?

Playing the field is an issue; it's part of what position players do. DH is a slot in the lineup, but it isn't actually a position, like it or not. And Molitor did at least play the field, as did the subpar defensively Ted Williams, as a complete player for a substantial part of his career. And since full-time DH'es rarely, if ever, played the field, the voters are under no obligation to vote in the best among them.

As to your punters and kickers in NFL analogy, that is an inapt comparison since the game structure of the NFL and the values of those NFL positions are not clearly parallel to the MLB game structure and designated hitters. If you would like to start a thread arguing for punters and kickers in the NFL HOF, I'm sure SOM would allow it.

I'd vote for him. He was a leader as well as a fearsome hitter. Edgar Martinez too.

I think DH's and kickers are comparable. They both have an immense influence on the outcomes of games and seasons(at least Ortiz does), yet when both leagues go to vote on the all-time greats, even the greatest DH's and kicker's are tossed aside like they are irrelevant because they are only part time players in the minds of many. The best of the best of them should be able to get in their respective HOF's. The Bills(Super Bowl) and Vikings(NFC Final) beat the Giants and Falcons if Viniteri is their kicker. The Patriots are down at least one Super Bowl if Viniteri is not their kicker. The Red Sox don't get by the Tigers in their last world series win without Ortiz and he hit about .500 against the Cards in the WS, never mind his heroics against the Yankees in the 0-3 comeback year. He was their most important player(I believe he played the field when in St. Louis) and MVP throughout the playoffs, how can he then not be worthy for entry to the HOF based on being a DH?

Dh's and kickers aren't aptly comparable for two reasons: they play entirely different games; and kickers are part of special teams, and baseball has no special teams. So, you really should argue for Vinatieri in another thread.

And whether or not DH's have an immense influence on the game, they're still part-time players who don't have a position and don't contribute defensively. They're not just part-time players in the minds of many; they're part-time players, period, who sit in the dugout while their fellow hitters play defense. And not putting them in the HOF is hardly "tossing them aside like they are irrelevant." It's just correctly acknowledging they weren't full-time players and only full-time players are HOF worthy.

As to his playoff performance, that's certainly not enough to earn him a spot in Cooperstown. Mark Lemke and many other mediocre players--like Don Larsen--had awesome playoff "careers." That doesn't earn them a spot in the HOF. That applies to Ortiz, as well, who still spent most of his career sitting in a dugout while his fellow offensive players contributed defensively. That's without even mentioning his positive testing in 2004.

Personally, I think he whines a bit to much for my liking. However, I believe that he will be voted into the HOF - mostly based upon his excellent post-season career and the fact that he played for Boston; lots of East Coat bias when it comes to HOF voting, IMO.

If he played for a Midwestern team and lacked the post-season opportunities, I think it would not be a lock.

Are you asking if he will be voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame? Or if we (I) think he should be in the hall to fame. Two entirely different questions. I don't think he'll be voted in as there seems to be. bias against the DH by Hall of Fame voters. Do I think he should be in??? Probably but the PED use is a strike against him. I do think however him being primarily a DH should not count against him. 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.

PS Sorry for the caps, not trying to shout, but trying to use the bold function when posting from a cellphone is damn near impossible. Just using the caps for emphasis, not trying to shout.

NO..

DH's and drug users excluded.

Sorry Sox fan, but no way.