Ortiz 500 HR = HOF?

All DJ did was pose the question if any of us think Ortiz is HOF worthy. And since none of us are voters it's not going to make any difference what our opinions are. Therefore, we are all entitled to our opinions, right? That said, many different arguments have risen out of this simple question. So I will answer the question first and then give my 2 cents on the alternate topics. Is he deserving? IMO, yes he is.

Didn't Frank Thomas get in? (I can't say I remember this for sure.) He had monster offensive numbers. So does Big Papi and Edgar. And altho not as huge as Thomas, Ortiz has incredible Post Season numbers and IMHO, think the combination of his regular season numbers and postseason numbers qualify him as worthy. In addition to this, these 3 DH's all played positions earlier in their careers.

The DH has been part of the game for quite some time now. Long enough to qualify the best ones as HOF worthy. They made a huge difference in their team's success over the years they played.

That stated, I am a National League fan all the way. I never liked the DH or American style of play since it's inception. But after all these years, I am glad it exists. It has extended the careers of many great hitters and adds a different dimension to the game overall. But I certainly wouldn't want the NL to ever start using it during the regular season. But I think that is a separate argument from being HOF worthy. HOF by it's very essence means you did something during your baseball career that was very memorable. Bill Mazerowski hits the winning HR in 1960 and although an NL gold glover most of his career, he never hit HOF worthy.

Brooks Robinson, also a lifetime Gold Glover, made it into far more World Series than Maz and he had much better offensive numbers. Now I am in no way dissing Maz, who is in the Hall for a reason. My point is in comparing Big Papi and whether he is deserving. And in My OPINION confirms that he is.

But it is definitely part of the game. I do think that comparing the NFL and MLB is like comparing apples and oranges and don't agree with either side of that argument. Again, it is just an OPINION.

I also think that in the ERA of PEDS, there should be an asterisk for everyone who used. And it's not that I condemn all the users as much as I applaud, respect and admire all those players who didn't. So many players used that IMO, it became part of the game during that time. And also IMO, Bonds and Clemens just did it better than everyone else. This does not mean that I condone or support the use in any way shape or form. It gave an ugly black eye to baseball that everyone from the players, to mgrs, to front offices, owners and YES - even the Commissioner are responsible for turning a blind eye to it for so long.

And it diminishes and disrespects the numbers that non users put up over the history of the game. But when all of us who witnessed the game since the 40's and 50's are gone, people will only see that Bonds and perhaps Arod and a few others had more HRs than Aaron and Ruth. That's why I am in favor of the asterisk.

Anyway. Now I have also opened up the field for more arguments that are spinoffs of the original question. But do I think Ortiz will be voted in one day? Yes, do. But I believe it will be awhile as there are definitely more deserving players ahead of him - Including Edgar Martinez.

Again, these are only my OPINIONS and are not subject to debate that would "Change my mind" no matter what other's opinions may be.

Also, there is not clear proof that Ortiz was indeed a PED user. The screening was supposed to be confidential and even the tester admitted that the results could have been "switched"; that is; results linked to the incorrect player

Good article on that here:

http://www.nationalsarmrace.com/?p=8047

Of course there is suspicion, but saying Ortiz used PEDs is a heck of a lot different than saying A-Rod, for example, used PEDs

Sorry if this isn't well written, but as we all know I'm a dropout

No, I showed pretty well why and how it's more than just my opinion.

It's not more than an opinion, it's just an opinion and a weak one at that that few, if any, agree with.

I do not really think comparing the NFL to MLB is that much of a stretch. To me(and my opinion), the specific situations are similar. Kickers are viewed as "specialty" players, and although I do not think it can be argued that some of the best have had a tremendous influence on their teams success, they have been almost totally excluded from the HOF because they are not viewed as "complete or total" players. The DH is in a very similar situation in baseball as exemplified in Strether's opinion, which is shared by many, including many old ***** who vote for HOF enshrinement. I am not suggesting there be a huge run on kickers and DH's entering their respective HOF's, but the extreme top echelon of the DH position deserves more HOF respect than they are given. They have at least let in a couple of kickers in the NFLHOF and I think Vinateri gets in when he retires.
Regarding my comments concerning two way players in football, my point is that the games change over the years(and decades). See dead ball era, etc. When the game changes you have to change with it. The standards for judging players must evolve with the game and the era. Like it or not, this is the era of the DH. It's in the rulebook since 1973 that it's a legal, legitimate position. It may make purists want to vomit, but the best DH's deserve to be judged on their accomplishments independent of prejudice's associated with a bygone era. The non-DH era ended circa 1973 when a guy named Blomberg stepped to the plate in Yankee pinstripes just as the dead ball era ended circa 1920-1921 when a guy named Ruth stepped to the plate in the same Yankee pinstripes.

I think we're on the same page. DJ'

The MLB-NFL comparision further tilts me toward saying DH should be consdiered for the HOF. To the extent the DH-Kicker analogy is accurate at least. I would absolute have top kickers in the HOF. If someone were say the top punter for a decade no question that Guy belongs. Or if you were the top place kicker for a decade same thing. Now if you were top for only a couple years no.

So someone who is a top DH for 3 or 4 years absolutely not. But if you were the best DH for better part of 2 decades..... then yes.

All DJ did was pose the question if any of us think Ortiz is HOF worthy. And since none of us are voters it's not going to make any difference what our opinions are. Therefore, we are all entitled to our opinions, right? That said, many different arguments have risen out of this simple question. So I will answer the question first and then give my 2 cents on the alternate topics. Is he deserving? IMO, yes he is.

Didn't Frank Thomas get in? (I can't say I remember this for sure.) He had monster offensive numbers. So does Big Papi and Edgar. And altho not as huge as Thomas, Ortiz has incredible Post Season numbers and IMHO, think the combination of his regular season numbers and postseason numbers qualify him as worthy. In addition to this, these 3 DH's all played positions earlier in their careers.

The DH has been part of the game for quite some time now. Long enough to qualify the best ones as HOF worthy. They made a huge difference in their team's success over the years they played.

That stated, I am a National League fan all the way. I never liked the DH or American style of play since it's inception. But after all these years, I am glad it exists. It has extended the careers of many great hitters and adds a different dimension to the game overall. But I certainly wouldn't want the NL to ever start using it during the regular season. But I think that is a separate argument from being HOF worthy. HOF by it's very essence means you did something during your baseball career that was very memorable. Bill Mazerowski hits the winning HR in 1960 and although an NL gold glover most of his career, he never hit HOF worthy.

Brooks Robinson, also a lifetime Gold Glover, made it into far more World Series than Maz and he had much better offensive numbers. Now I am in no way dissing Maz, who is in the Hall for a reason. My point is in comparing Big Papi and whether he is deserving. And in My OPINION confirms that he is.

But it is definitely part of the game. I do think that comparing the NFL and MLB is like comparing apples and oranges and don't agree with either side of that argument. Again, it is just an OPINION.

I also think that in the ERA of PEDS, there should be an asterisk for everyone who used. And it's not that I condemn all the users as much as I applaud, respect and admire all those players who didn't. So many players used that IMO, it became part of the game during that time. And also IMO, Bonds and Clemens just did it better than everyone else. This does not mean that I condone or support the use in any way shape or form. It gave an ugly black eye to baseball that everyone from the players, to mgrs, to front offices, owners and YES - even the Commissioner are responsible for turning a blind eye to it for so long.

And it diminishes and disrespects the numbers that non users put up over the history of the game. But when all of us who witnessed the game since the 40's and 50's are gone, people will only see that Bonds and perhaps Arod and a few others had more HRs than Aaron and Ruth. That's why I am in favor of the asterisk.

Anyway. Now I have also opened up the field for more arguments that are spinoffs of the original question. But do I think Ortiz will be voted in one day? Yes, do. But I believe it will be awhile as there are definitely more deserving players ahead of him - Including Edgar Martinez.

Again, these are only my OPINIONS and are not subject to debate that would "Change my mind" no matter what other's opinions may be.

Even if the opinions are wrong?

I didn't mean they're not subject to debate. Just that any debate won't change my mind.

Hey, what happened to I.S? Did he really get kicked off the boards? Or maybe just suspended for a bit? I never really minded his 100 cents. And actually found a lot of his posts to be informative and entertaining. But I can see where he could intimidate a lot of newbies who might like to post.

When he was on, there was certainly never need for filler.

Whatever one thinks of if he should get in there is no doubt in my mind Ortiz will get in. If he doesn't I would suspect voters reasoning to be more PED suspicion than DH abhorrance. I think the DH legitimacy is so accepted in the media who do the voting most objections based on that become irrelevant.

He also has the whole Boston thing going for him and is well liked by almost all the media around the country. That cannot be ignored when discussing whether a player will or will not get in.