Ortiz 500 HR = HOF?

You cherry pick only the one ones you want to and the rest, well, you just quit on them as you have nothing to back them up, and this happens time and time again.

Can I get an AMEN from the congregation! Preach Brother Dave!

Please continue your support for Dave's ravings, Robby. Considering he didn't back up a single erroneous thing he said, it shows you're as clueless as he is...

Just call them like I,see them. Time for you quit another thread.

Guess the pink bars came off once again relying on that selective reading again.

You really should READ all the posts before shooting your mouth off once again, something that you have shown repeatedly you cannot comprehend.

Frank Thomas hit 250 HR as a 1B and 271 as a DH or PH. Apparently those 271 HR did not help his team much since he wasn't playing 1B so I guess he got into the HOF based on those 250 other HR he hit. Interesting.

Firstly, I never questioned Ortiz' or any other full-time Dh helping his team. So, that's a specious and irrelevant straw-man "argument." It goes well with your specious, inapt pitchers comparison.

And thanks for showing Frank Thomas played many more games defensively than Ortiz. You're now actively, not just inadvertently, supporting my argument. Interesting.

I would put him in. And before someone drags up a post from 30 years ago where I said no DH should ever qualify for the HOF let me spare you the trouble. I said it. I said it more than once. I said it as long as I thought someone was listening. DHs were only half players and I was not going to count or take anyone seriously who could not add full value with a glove. You only played half the game you were only half a player. Wait, 4 ABs, 5 AB on a good day, 6 on a great day offensively for a team comes to about 10% of the ABs for the team which means 10% portion of 50% of the game. Unless you want to get in to Berra's math and then it just gets too complicated for my wore out old mind.

Finally realized nobody was listening.

If Molitor is in and Martinez is in .......

I suppose though what finally got me swayed to the dark side was the DH is a part of the game like it or not. It is not going anywhere and to pretend like they are not there is silly. Same logic with closers. They are now an integral part of the game. More fans can tell you who the hometown's closer is than can tell you who plays the 8 fielders who have started the most games over the last month. Heck, I might be able to not only name the closer, I might be able to name the setup man on most teams before I could spout out their lineup.

Over the years the whole debate about much a player means to a team, role in history, leadership, value, deservedness, contribution, WAR, PEACE, etc. has warped my mind until it is little more than silly putty.

Ten years ago this was a very complicated equation for me. Today it is a very simple one.
A closer is an official position on a team. Debate whatever you want what makes a good one or in the end what impact a good one has on winning. Same with a DH. We can debate the value or merits or whatever sabre buzzword you like the DH is a position which has come to have a history. The DHs of today have a sufficient body of work as a DH as to be compared with those who have manned the DH slot over several decades. So if someone does things that no other DH has done that deserves to be recognized. A pitcher saves more games than any closer in history or is in top whatever on the list deserves to be in. I am even going so far to the dark side I am on the verge of saying even setup relievers based on holds stats should be in HOF if they have hold totals that stand out head and shoulders and arms and fingers, and sliders and changeups than other setup men.

They have roles that can be defined as a position on the team. They are thus a subset of the league. Just as those who play short or second are judged different regarding how many HRs, etc. than say first basemen.
He in the top 5 to 10 in saves give him a plaque, He in top 5 to 10 in holds put him in. He in the top 10 in quality starts ...... wait ..... that might be going too far.

You get my point, I hope. You are among the best ever at doing the specific position yo played you deserve a shot to get in.

Finally in summation all the above can be thrown out. In the minds of most fans DH, closer, setup reliever are all people. Bottom line the HOF is not the Hall of the good, or even the very good, It is about the best at doing something over an extended period of time. Wait that not right either.

The Hall Of Fame is... drumroll please .......the Hall of fame. In other words the hall of the famous.
Ortiz certainly fits the fame as only someone in a coma last decade would not have noticed his contributions.
It is the Hall Of FAME. Look up fame in the dictionary and you will find some form of the word famous.
Translation: H-O-F is the Hall of the famous. Ortiz qualifies.

Bottom line whether or not we like the DH (I do not) it is an official position now and is not going anywhere. If you are the best at your position for a decade, or top 3 or so for over a decade then I could not quarrel with any voter who put him on their ballot.

I agree with strether that a player like Frank Thomas, who had more HR or other offensive contributions as a DH than any other position, should be in the HOF if their total stats warrant it.

f Molitor is in and Martinez is in .......

Molitor wasn't a full-time DH for almost all his career and played many positions for the Brewers. Martinez isn't in yet, and isn't likely to be voted in.

I suppose though what finally got me swayed to the dark side was the DH is a part of the game like it or not. It is not going anywhere and to pretend like they are not there is silly. Same logic with closers.

Nobody said the DH isn't part of the game, so you went to the dark side for nothing. I correctly said DH's are 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. So, you're saying they should be in the HOF just because they're a "part of the game" is truly silly.

Same logic with closers. They are now an integral part of the game. More fans can tell you who the hometown's closer is than can tell you who plays the 8 fielders who have started the most games over the last month. Heck, I might be able to not only name the closer, I might be able to name the setup man on most teams before I could spout out their lineup.

Again, being a part of the game doesn't mean you should be in the HOF. Backup catchers are an integral part of the game, too; that doesn't qualify them for it. And are you really saying players should be in the HOF because people can name who they are? That is really silly.

A closer is an official position on a team. Debate whatever you want what makes a good one or in the end what impact a good one has on winning. Same with a DH. We can debate the value or merits or whatever sabre buzzword you like the DH is a position which has come to have a history.

Now you're repeating yourself. And again, having a history doesn't mean the "postion" is HOF worthy. As I said earlier, backup catchers have a history, too. There aren't many career backup catchers in the HOF.

The DHs of today have a sufficient body of work as a DH as to be compared with those who have manned the DH slot over several decades. So if someone does things that no other DH has done that deserves to be recognized. A pitcher saves more games than any closer in history or is in top whatever on the list deserves to be in.

That's another irrelevant argument that doesn't address any anti-Ortiz one. Nobody is saying he doesn't have an excellent body of work, I just correctly said he did it as a part-time player and part-time players shouldn't be in the HOF.

I am even going so far to the dark side I am on the verge of saying even setup relievers based on holds stats should be in HOF if they have hold totals that stand out head and shoulders and arms and fingers, and sliders and changeups than other setup men. They have roles that can be defined as a position on the team. They are thus a subset of the league. Just as those who play short or second are judged different regarding how many HRs, etc. than say first basemen. He in the top 5 to 10 in saves give him a plaque, He in top 5 to 10 in holds put him in. He in the top 10 in quality starts ...... wait ..... that might be going too far.

You're rambling here, and not making any relevant argument. And if you're comparing DH's to setup men, you've undermined you're already erroneous stance further.

Finally in summation all the above can be thrown out. In the minds of most fans DH, closer, setup reliever are all people. Bottom line the HOF is not the Hall of the good, or even the very good, It is about the best at doing something over an extended period of time. Wait that not right either.The Hall Of Fame is... drumroll please .......the Hall of fame. In other words the hall of the famous.Ortiz certainly fits the fame as only someone in a coma last decade would not have noticed his contributions. It is the Hall Of FAME. Look up fame in the dictionary and you will find some form of the word famous.Translation: H-O-F is the Hall of the famous. Ortiz qualifies.

All the above of what you said in your post can be thrown out? You're making sense now. And no, the HOF is not just about being the best at what you do for an extended period of time. Your bringing up set-up men helps prove that. It's about being one of the best players in baseball history...and full-time DH's are just among the best part-time players in it.

And drum-rolls really don't help your argument. They are very silly. And even sillier is your saying the HOF is the hall of the famous, despite your misguided etymological assertions. If fame was all that matters, lesser known players like Schoendienst would be eliminated and famous lesser players like Steve Garvey would be in. The HOF is a reward for playing excellence, not the accumulation of public awareness.

Bottom line whether or not we like the DH (I do not) it is an official position now and is not going anywhere. If you are the best at your position for a decade, or top 3 or so for over a decade then I could not quarrel with any voter who put him on their ballot.

Bottom line, this is the second time you have repeated this statement, and I have well-countered it each time. Feel free to try again if you wish.

I agree with strether that a player like Frank Thomas, who had more HR or other offensive contributions as a DH than any other position, should be in the HOF if their total stats warrant it.

That's cool we're in agreement, since--as you pointed out--Thomas hit more than half of his home runs while playing 1b, so he wasn't the full-time career DH Ortiz has been.

I agree with strether that a player like Frank Thomas, who had more HR or other offensive contributions as a DH than any other position, should be in the HOF if their total stats warrant it.

That's cool we're in agreement, since--as you pointed out--Thomas hit more than half of his home runs while playing 1b, so he wasn't the full-time career DH Ortiz has been.

And without his HR's hit as a DH he would not be in the HOF. Thomas was a part-time DH, part-time 1B, his stats as a 1B alone would not get him into the HOF period. If you disagree, show me a power hitter with <300 HRs who is in the HOF.

DH is a position, and Ortiz has played it arguable better than anyone in his career, how many of his homers were not at the DH position, I would bet <50.

Oh my, another pink bar from Dave who is like the moth to the flame with my posts. If anyone wants to take up whatever terrible argument he wrote, feel free. Considering he writes the worst arguments I've encountered, I won't count on it...

I agree with strether that a player like Frank Thomas, who had more HR or other offensive contributions as a DH than any other position, should be in the HOF if their total stats warrant it.

That's cool we're in agreement, since--as you pointed out--Thomas hit more than half of his home runs while playing 1b, so he wasn't the full-time career DH Ortiz has been.

Apparently you are not able to read very well. As I previously correctly pointed out......Thomas hit more HR as a DH then he did as a 1B.

No, I read perfectly well. I just don't keep track of your stats supporting specious arguments. Also, you said he hit 271 as DH or PH. So, he could still have hit more as a 1bman than as a DH, and you don't read your own posts very well.

Either way, there is no comparison between Thomas and Ortiz who played almost his entire career as a DH. So, you still have to try again.