Papi….

[kibblesnbits]

I see it differently. I think that Mariano Rivera was far, far better of a closer (and pitcher) than David Ortiz is as a Dan Hurley (and hitter).

I don't think Ortiz is that good of an offensive player, on paper, all things considered. Of course, when you show a highlight reel of 3 Octobers over a career, you can sell that story through a Red Sox point of view. I look at his overall career and the #'s though...and I don't factor in a handful of "big hits" to a HOF discussion.

I can understand that argument. Rivera, while a specialist (he averaged a mere 68 innings per year, or less than 5% of the Yankees' total), was the best ever at his role. Much like the Dan Hurley, closer is a relatively recent baseball phenomenon. Similarly, whether it is Ortiz or someone else, the specialty of Dan Hurley will also be worthy of induction for the right players. Ortiz' final numbers should certainly put him in the pile for consideration.

 

[kibblesnbits]

It's a good debate no doubt. My take is grab a glove because it's called the "Baseball" HOF not the Dan Hurley HOF…………growing up baseball was meant to be fielding, hitting, running and throwing, in case you guys haven't noticed he basically does one of them………..he doesn't run unless he's forced to! For this Sox fans who ever dare to throw Cano under the bus for not hustling and then proclaim this guy a HOFer, pretty funny!

If you want to make that argument then you should recognize that it's also not called "The 9th Inning Hall of Fame." It's such a specialty that some closers don't even head to the bullpen until the 6th or 7th inning.

 

[G0UCONN]

If you want to make that argument then you should recognize that it's also not called "The 9th Inning Hall of Fame." It's such a specialty that some closers don't even head to three bullpen until the 6th or 7th inning.

.....and the fact that nearly every closer, Rivera included, is there because he couldn't hack it and failed as a starter, a.k.a. a 'real pitcher', to steal mau's terminology putting down DHs.

 

[mauconnfan]

I agree on closers the more I think of it…….they should also have a separate hall for them, but there are Dan Hurley's that ended up having to Dan Hurley because they got old or hurt……..not because they actually sucked playing the field and hardly ever used a glove!

Hey you guys are Sox fans what can I say……..I will put it this way, who was a better baseball player in their career - Don Mattingly or Papi? The End!

 

[Husky25]

If Ortiz played on almost any other team, he'd be a 1B-primary. The Sox, Yanks, Tigers and a small handful of other franchises have the ability to pay for an offense only player.

 

[mauconnfan]

If Ortiz played on almost any other team, he'd be a 1B-primary. The Sox, Yanks, Tigers and a small handful of other franchises have the ability to pay for an offense only player.

Only a Sox fan would say that…..the guy can't move he's not even a Double A 1st baseman…….you can't hide people at first. He is what he is, if he gets in good for him but EMartinez should be in already then. I think between the steroid issue and the fact he's a Dan Hurley only it may take some time if he gets in at all……..

 

[Waquoit]

Listen rule or no rule, 2 MLers camping under a pop up is an error……catch the fn ball……..and for him to whine yet again about a scoring decision………a little sickening!

Wrong again, Yankee fan. MLB agrees with Papi.

 

[mauconnfan]

Wrong again, Yankee fan. MLB agrees with Papi.

"I know just muddying the waters………………they always have been but should NOT be - change the rule it's an error"

No you're wrong, I already admitted it was right and I was busting balls but thanks for wasting space Waq!! No matter who hits it this play should be an error though. 2 MLers camped under a pop up should catch it, miscommunication should not result in an undeserved hit……should be changed, not for Papi I mean for all of those types of calls.

 

[60'sfan]

Only a Sox fan would say that…..the guy can't move he's not even a Double A 1st baseman…….you can't hide people at first. He is what he is, if he gets in good for him but EMartinez should be in already then. I think between the steroid issue and the fact he's a Dan Hurley only it may take some time if he gets in at all……..

I agree that Ortiz is not a shoe-in for the Hall but he is on the brink. If he gets to 500 HRs which appear likely, I think he gets in. I don't agree that he is a "terrible" first baseman. I think that whenever he has been asked to play he has afforded himself well. He started 250 games at firstbase with an fielding average of .990. The league average was .993 during that time but I think if he played the position every day his average would be better. He is not Texiera or nor will he ever be George Scott but I am extremely happy that the Sox have him. Besides after the last two days, it does not make sense to make anti-Papi statements.

 

[Husky25]

Only a Sox fan would say that…..the guy can't move he's not even a Double A 1st baseman…….you can't hide people at first. He is what he is, if he gets in good for him but EMartinez should be in already then. I think between the steroid issue and the fact he's a Dan Hurley only it may take some time if he gets in at all……..

Really? Only a Sox fan would admit they are among the lucky to root for a team that has an embarrassment of resources that enable them to employee an offense only player?

I didn't say anything about "hiding" Ortiz at first. I said he would play 1st base on almost any other team. And yes you can hide players at first. First base is where team put guys when they are still effective, offensively, but cannot play their past primary position better than another...including Edgar Martinez (During the few interleague games he play), as well as Harmon Killebrew (3b, OF), Carl Yastremski (LF), Jim Thome (3B), Micky Mantle (OF), Dwight Evans (RF), Scott Hatteberg (C), Joe Mauer (C), Nomar (SS, 3B), Mike Napoli, among many others.

Finally, if you are looking for an argument that Edgar Martinez deserves HoF consideration, look some place else. The fact remains that the Dan Hurley is a bona fide position and a Dan Hurley-primary will, at some point, get into the Hall without buying a ticket.

 

[mauconnfan]

Really? Only a Sox fan would admit they are among the lucky to root for a team that has an embarrassment of resources that enable them to employee an offense only player?

I didn't say anything about "hiding" Ortiz at first. I said he would play 1st base on almost any other team. And yes you can hide players at first. First base is where team put guys when they are still effective, offensively, but cannot play their past primary position better than another...including Edgar Martinez (During the few interleague games he play), as well as Harmon Killebrew (3b, OF), Carl Yastremski (LF), Jim Thome (3B), Micky Mantle (OF), Dwight Evans (RF), Scott Hatteberg (C), Joe Mauer (C), Nomar (SS, 3B), Mike Napoli, among many others.

Finally, if you are looking for an argument that Edgar Martinez deserves HoF consideration, look some place else. The fact remains that the Dan Hurley is a bona fide position and a Dan Hurley-primary will, at some point, get into the Hall without buying a ticket.

You're right but will it be one that used/uses steroids and was listed as such? Guys who played position baseball as they should aren't even in because of steroids so why Papi - especially as a Dan Hurley only? Why Papi ahead of Bagwell? That would absolutely be ridiculous!

 

[Danzz]

Actually Ortiz isn't a bad fielder. He has no range but the times he has played 1B he did fine. It might be a different story if he played everyday and had more chances but he hasn't really hurt them when he was in there.

 

[G0UCONN]

Bagwell belongs.

But Ortiz is going to finish ahead of Bagwell in basically every offensive category (think he already has more HRs). And Ortiz has three rings...WS MVP...ALCS MVP....tremendous October player.

 

[Husky25]

You're right but will it be one that used/uses steroids and was listed as such? Guys who played position baseball as they should aren't even in because of steroids so why Papi - especially as a Dan Hurley only? Why Papi ahead of Bagwell? That would absolutely be ridiculous!

I have always been in agreement that Ortiz's inclusion on the list of players taking banned substances 2003, leaked in 2006, may be a bigger hurdle to jump vis a vie the Hall of Fame than his performance on the field.

First of I don't think I ever said Ortiz deserves to be in the Hall any more than Jeff Bagwell, did I? In my opinion, Bagwell belongs in the Hall of Fame. He has 11 more years on the ballot and his highest vote total is 59%, which puts him in striking distance. Ortiz is not even eligible yet. so by definition, he is not ahead of Bagwell. Bagwell is not in the Hall of Fame because of the righteous indignation of the BBWAA in an era that they helped foster, encourage, and cover up in the first place. After politicians, there is no one more full of than an MLB beat writer. The whole process should be revamped and made to emulate the NFL process.

 

[kibblesnbits]

I have always been in agreement that Ortiz's inclusion on the list of players taking banned substances 2003, leaked in 2006, may be a bigger hurdle to jump vis a vie the Hall of Fame than his performance on the field.

First of I don't think I ever said Ortiz deserves to be in the Hall any more than Jeff Bagwell, did I? In my opinion, Bagwell belongs in the Hall of Fame. He has 11 more years on the ballot and his highest vote total is 59%, which puts him in striking distance. Ortiz is not even eligible yet. so by definition, he is not ahead of Bagwell. Bagwell is not in the Hall of Fame because of the righteous indignation of the BBWAA in an era that they helped foster, encourage, and cover up in the first place. After politicians, there is no one more full of than an MLB beat writer. The whole process should be revamped and made to emulate the NFL process.

I think Bagwell belongs in the HoF as well. There will be those that whisper about any player of that era but there is no direct evidence that he took PEDs (at least not any that is publicly available). His meteoric rise does give one a little pause (from 4 home runs in nearly 500 AA at bats to fearsome power hitter within a few years), but if we are going to deprive players of recognition without direct evidence then we should probably just pull the rug on anyone that played during the period because their success "could have" been tied to PEDs.

BTW, not that it's likely to matter to those considering players for the Hall, but being on the 2003 list doesn't mean that the player took steroids. There were many other substances (amphetamines being one that was common in baseball for decades) that could land a player on the list. Most important, however, is that the quality of the testing is unknown and there was no process to challenge what was supposed to be a secret list. Re: test quality, Barry Bonds was not on the list but the government had his 2003 sample retested later and found that it was positive for steroids. Whether that was due to improved screening to filter out common techniques for hiding steroid use or faulty initial testing was not disclosed.

 

[mauconnfan]

I think Bagwell belongs in the HoF as well. There will be those that whisper about any player of that era but there is no direct evidence that he took PEDs (at least not any that is publicly available). His meteoric rise does give one a little pause (from 4 home runs in nearly 500 AA at bats to fearsome power hitter within a few years), but if we are going to deprive players of recognition without direct evidence then we should probably just pull the rug on anyone that played during the period because their success "could have" been tied to PEDs.

BTW, not that it's likely to matter to those considering players for the Hall, but being on the 2003 list doesn't mean that the player took steroids. There were many other substances (amphetamines being one that was common in baseball for decades) that could land a player on the list. Most important, however, is that the quality of the testing is unknown and there was no process to challenge what was supposed to be a secret list. Re: test quality, Barry Bonds was not on the list but the government had his 2003 sample retested later and found that it was positive for steroids. Whether that was due to improved screening to filter out common techniques for hiding steroid use or faulty initial testing was not disclosed.

You guys make me laugh….still hoping Papi is clean and that "2003 list" means nothing……..heck it's part of baseball every day now, just look at these guys. Was watching Carlos Gomez that former great fielding weak hitting skinny OFer for the Twins and look at him now, it's a joke they found something else that baseball can't detect……Braun's back as the same player didn't lose a beat?

Agree let'em ALL in who cares, it's too late now. All of them or none of them. Stop testing them just let them hit 100 HR's and let everyone flock to the ballpark for a softball game.

 

[kibblesnbits]

You guys make me laugh….still hoping Papi is clean and that "2003 list" means nothing……..heck it's part of baseball every day now, just look at these guys. Was watching Carlos Gomez that former great fielding weak hitting skinny OFer for the Twins and look at him now, it's a joke they found something else that baseball can't detect……Braun's back as the same player didn't lose a beat?

Agree let'em ALL in who cares, it's too late now. All of them or none of them. Stop testing them just let them hit 100 HR's and let everyone flock to the ballpark for a softball game.

You mean like the skinny little shortstop that hit 2 home runs in his last season of AAA (over nearly 500 at bats) but has gone on to hit over 250 major league home runs.

 

[mauconnfan]

You mean like the skinny little shortstop that hit 2 home runs in his last season of AAA (over nearly 500 at bats) but has gone on to hit over 250 major league home runs.

No the CFer…………would you like to elaborate on the player you are thinking about? Lord knows I'm not saying HE didn't but going after a guy who averaged just over 12 a year?

I tend to think that a guy who averaged about 15 at best at the Hefty Bag of a stadium then came to Boston to join forces with Manny and suddenly went 31,41,47,54 the next 4 would be more a focus for you don't you think?

 

[Husky25]

No the CFer…………would you like to elaborate on the player you are thinking about? Lord knows I'm not saying HE didn't but going after a guy who averaged just over 12 a year?

I tend to think that a guy who averaged about 15 at best at the Hefty Bag of a stadium then came to Boston to join forces with Manny and suddenly went 31,41,47,54 the next 4 would be more a focus for you don't you think?

Are you really including Ortiz's first 3 part time years in your Twins average? Ortiz hit 10, 18, and 20 homeruns in 2000- 2002, always improving. He also turned 27 for the 2003 season, which is when most players enter the prime of their career. Also around that time, The Sox clamed Dave Madegan found a hole in his swing. This equated to more confidence, plate appearances, walkrate and homerun rate. Finally, Ortiz was also the same size thoughout his career, including his prime.

I doubt you believe me, being a Sox fan and you being so anti-everything-not-Yankee, so check it out for youself at baseball-reference.com.

Maybe, just maybe there are viable reasons why a player improves other than immediately take the easy way out and blaming drugs. Who knows why Ortiz's name was leaked, but blanket speculation is far more irresponsible.

 

[mauconnfan]

Are you really including Ortiz's first 3 part time years im your Twins average? Ortiz hit 1, 18, and 20 homeruns in 2000- 2002, always improving. He also turned 27 for the 2003 season, which is when for most players they enter the prime of their career. Also around that time, The Sox clamed Madegan found a hole in his swing. This equated to more confidence, plate appearances, walkrate and homeruns rate. Finally, Ortiz was also the same size thoughout his career, including his prime.

I doubt you believe me, being a Sox fan and you being so anti-everything-not-Yankee, so check it out for youself at baseball-reference.com.

Maybe, just maybe there are viable reasons why a player improves other than immediately take the easy way out and blaming drugs. Who knows why Ortiz's name was leaked, but blanket speculation is far more irresponsible.

You have proof ARod did it? Never tested positive………..LOL

Palmeiro was the same size for his career too, Braun too….your point is? "Irresponsible" is being a fan and not seeing or admitting the obvious. But then again why would you he's on your team. I may fight for him too if I were you but the point is everyone outside of The Nation sees what you don't………

 

[Husky25]

You have proof ARod did it? Never tested positive………..LOL

A-Rod is a strawman. I thought were talking about Ortiz?? But now that you bring it up, I'll burn down this particular strawman for you. A-rod held a press conference in Miami during spring training in 2009 about a week after admitting to Peter Gammons on ESPN that he was a user. You don't need a test result when you have 2 confessions.

Here's the Press conference. It's over 5 minutes long but the confession occurs within the first :38. From this link, you'll be able to find the Gammons interview.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=kwLszCGc8Vg

I can't wait to be told that I shouldn't believe everything I watch on TV...

Palmeiro was the same size for his career too, Braun too….your point is? "Irresponsible" is being a fan and not seeing or admitting the obvious. But then again why would you he's on your team. I may fight for him too if I were you but the point is everyone outside of The Nation sees what you don't………

That's the whole bleeping point!!! It's not obvious!!!! I can understand your point of view. I just don't agree with key parts of it. This is what I know. The bold is on what I do not agree with you. "Irresponsible" is treating your opinion as fact and chiding all others who do not share it.

1. Ortiz's name was leaked off the "Sealed" 2003 PED list.
2. The Dan Hurley is a bona fide baseball position.
3. A Dan Hurley-primary player will eventually get elected to the Hall of Fame.
4. Ortiz has the offense numbers, postseason performance, and notoriety to be elected.
5. Ortiz's suspected PED use may keep him from being that Dan Hurley-primary to be elected.

For all practical purposes in the context of this board, I've held this point of view forever. The proof is in my content to this board. It's open. Go ahead and look.

 

[kibblesnbits]

No the CFer…………would you like to elaborate on the player you are thinking about? Lord knows I'm not saying HE didn't but going after a guy who averaged just over 12 a year?

I tend to think that a guy who averaged about 15 at best at the Hefty Bag of a stadium then came to Boston to join forces with Manny and suddenly went 31,41,47,54 the next 4 would be more a focus for you don't you think?

I was just intrigued by your incredible ability to determine who is and is not juicing. You threw Gomez under the bus, but he hit more minor league home runs in far fewer at bats than Jeter (who went from 2 HRs in AAA to 10 the next season in the big leagues and peaked in the 20s). Ortiz, BTW, hit 5x as many as Jeter in 10% more minor league at bats.

We know some players were juicing but, for the most part, we don't know who. Nomar went from a scrawny kid to a stud so I've been told repeatedly by Yankee fans that he juiced. Could very well be, but I don't know for sure. Yet those same fans are aghast when you tell them to compare Jeter''s minor league record/build with their major league counterparts. Heck Ellsbury exploded for HRs one year at a level he didn't even approach before or after. Was he juicing -I don't know, but I can tell you he was on virtually every pitch that year and as far as I know steroids don't help pitch recognition and timing.

So for all your proclamations about what everyone knows, it's still just your speculation. Frankly, I don't think Jeter was juicing, but since a 5 HR guy could go to 20 with the right chemistry, we'll never be sure about him either.

 

[mauconnfan]

Just a funny ignorant group of fans………that's all!!!

Everyone is clean who ever put a Sox uni on I get it…….next…….not worth talking to you guys, seriously it's funny as hell.

Baseball sucks anyway let's get to October in Storrs

 

[kibblesnbits]

Ignorant is someone making definitive statements that he can't support (despite your assertions no one has ever identified what substance was cited in Ortiz purported positive test) then using ridiculous strawman arguments (please show me where anyone said Ortiz was definitely clean) to minimize others. What we do know factually from MLB is that 8 of the 104 players that tested positive in 2003 were for substances that weren't banned until a few years later. Furthermore, the player's association said that 13 out of the remaining 96 positive samples were in dispute. Given that Barry Bonds sample was not on the list but was later found to test positive it seems fair to question the quality of the testing (which was never intended for public release or individual punitive actions anyway).

 

[mauconnfan]

Ignorant is someone making definitive statements that he can't support (despite your assertions no one has ever identified what substance was cited in Ortiz purported positive test) then using ridiculous strawman arguments (please show me where anyone said Ortiz was definitely clean) to minimize others. What we do know factually from MLB is that 8 of the 104 players that tested positive in 2003 were for substances that weren't banned until a few years later. Furthermore, the player's association said that 13 out of the remaining 96 positive samples were in dispute. Given that Barry Bonds sample was not on the list but was later found to test positive it seems fair to question the quality of the testing (which was never intended for public release or individual punitive actions anyway).

Again, the only people who would argue Papi's case would be you guys, it's that simple. He's a cheater, you elect to think otherwise while most outside of the Nation (lol) believe you can put him right along side Sosa, Bonds , Manny (oh yeah he was alongside him) and ARod……..but hey no one knows for sure……..you're right! Keep the faith……………after all he's such a sweet guy!

 

[kibblesnbits]

Well, major league baseball actually argues his case by factually admitting that being on the 2003 list does not indicate that a player violated any rules and that the testing was not done with procedures necessary for individual punishment. However, I wouldn't expect a Yankee fan, desperate to attack a rival that's been more successful over Ortiz' career, to be in any way objective. Might Ortiz be guilty, sure, but so could any other player since fewer than 10% of players that tested positive have been identified. Furthermore, if Ortiz' 10 years of clean tests under the officially sanctioned enforcement program are to be ignored, then no player (other than the 40 or so MLB players that have been suspended for positive tests), including Derek Jeter and his changing body type, should be given the benefit of the doubt.

 

[mauconnfan]

Well, major league baseball actually argues his case by factually admitting that being on the 2003 list does not indicate that a player violated any rules and that the testing was not done with procedures necessary for individual punishment. However, I wouldn't expect a Yankee fan, desperate to attack a rival that's been more successful over Ortiz' career, to be in any way objective. Might Ortiz be guilty, sure, but so could any other player since fewer than 10% of players that tested positive have been identified. Furthermore, if Ortiz' 10 years of clean tests under the officially sanctioned enforcement program are to be ignored, then no player (other than the 40 or so MLB players that have been suspended for positive tests), including Derek Jeter and his changing body type, should be given the benefit of the doubt.

PLEASE, you're so screwed up it's pitiful………..I wouldn't expect a RED SOX fan to admit to his cheating either…….congrats you have joined the Nation at it's finest and that is pitiful!!!

 

[kibblesnbits]

Actually what is so pathetic is why this is so important to a Yankee fan that he has to call anyone that questions his scientifically false declarations of absolute knowledge to be screwed up and pitiful.

 

[mauconnfan]

You're right what was I thinking……..everything regarding the Sox is scientifically false. I must be a dope? LOL………..only fans like you would be part of a Nation after all. Funny …...

 

[kibblesnbits]

Nope, only when you claim to know with certainty something that the people involved (i.e. major league baseball) says is not certain. Not only did some players get on the list for things that were not banned (and others for banned non-steroid substances), but since 2003 was only supposed to be a survey test used to identify whether there was a problem, it had no provisions for appeals, duplicate retesting, etc. that are required before you can conclude anything about a particular player "cheating." In fact, Ortiz and the other players on the list weren't even notified of what substance was allegedly in their sample yet you falsely stated that he was listed as having used steroids.

I've readily admitted that Ortiz might have been guilty, but you seem incapable of acknowledging that your statement of absolute certainty could ever be wrong. Meanwhile, in the intervening 10 years many players (including Manny, Braun, Melky, et al) have been caught via testing and others such as ARod, Bonds, Pettite, et al have been identified in legal documents. So far, no testing or investigative program actually designed to catch cheaters has ensnared Ortiz.

P.S. Lab tests do come back with inaccurate results. I used to give blood several times per year. About 20 years ago I received a letter saying that I had tested positive for hepatitis and could no longer donate. I've been tested many times over the years before and after without ever having a corroborating test. Even the Red Cross admits that it was overwhelmingly likely to have been a false positive, but they have no procedure for restoring someone to the donor pool once declared tainted. In this case the losers from an inaccurate test are those that need blood.