Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Bronx Baseball Newsletter's avatar

100% agree with what was said in this article. Just because you've done some questionable things off the field, or have a bad personality, doesn't mean your stats should be undermined and overshadowed.

Expand full comment
Caleb Hawkins's avatar

I have to disagree with your stance. I would argue that the Hall of Fame should be slightly less about stats, and lean into the off-the-field stuff even further.

A lot of your argument is focused around how David Ortiz is in the Hall of Fame while A-Rod is still on the outside looking in. Now, after reading your post and taking a look at your Substack, I'm going to assume that you're a Yankees fan, because you're the first person that I've heard argue for A-Rod to be in the Hall.

You point out that A-Rod had better career numbers than Ortiz, which is obviously and undisputedly correct. A-Rod is better in every statistical category, with the only two exceptions being SLG and OPS, in which Ortiz has a .002 and .001 better score, so it's pretty much a wash.

The difference between the two players, at least in my view, is that 1.) Ortiz has some of the most memorable postseason moments in the history of baseball, 2.) A-Rod wasn't beloved by even New York fans, and 3.) A-Rod tested positive for steroids MULTIPLE TIMES over the course of his career, while Ortiz only tested positive once in 2003 and never tested positive again after that.

Why shouldn't the Hall of Fame be more about the character of the player? Stats are obviously incredibly important, but shouldn't we want more franchise icons, such as Salvador Perez in KC, to be in the Hall of Fame, even if their numbers might come slightly short of being HOF-worthy?

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts