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.
The joke of it is that the the HOF lists integrity, good teammate, sportsmanship etc. as some of their criteria. Yet, the inaugural HOF Class in 1936 had Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb. They deface every one of those character clauses and that was the inaugural HOF class! It took Orlando Cepeda many years to get into the hall bc he had legal troubles and was disliked. Juan Marichal was kept out the first couple years bc he hit Johnny Roseboro over the head the the bat. Those are all ridiculous reasons to keep someone out of the Hall. Also, think of this. Who has a better personal resume? Sammy Sosa or David Ortiz? It's close but I'd go with Sosa. Ortiz had more RBI's but Sosa is in the elusive 600 club. Sosa led the league in runs scored 3 times (Ortiz was an obese slug), Sosa led the league in HR's twice to Ortiz' once, and yes Ortiz led the league thrice in RBI opposed to Sosa's twice but those seasons Sosa drove in 158 and 160 runs. And Ortiz didn't even play the field! They both were PED guys and both were unable to stay at the big league level without PED's. And, the average fan probably forgets that Ortiz spent his first 6 seasons with Minnesota where he was a nothing. Then comes to Boston and starts pounding the cover off the ball. It's not rocket science to figure that one out. Sammy Sosa pretty much the same thing when he was on the South Side of Chicago and when he went to the North Side he morphed into a megastar. So, they both had similar careers yet one is in because he's the "Good Samaritan." And yes people say well Ortiz was a fantastic postseason player. I have no argument on that but the baseball HOF is not about the team stuff. That's where it's prevalent in the football HOF. for instance, Joe Namath, Len Dawson, and Ken Stabler would not be in the pro football HOF if they didn't win a Super Bowl.
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?
Hey Caleb thanks for your feedback. We can agree to disagree. So, yes Ortiz only tested positive once but A-Rod is a far given God gifted athlete. Ortiz was not able to stay at the Major League level if he wasn't juicing. Therefore without steroids he would of been a AAA player. A-Rod like Clemens and Bonds were first ballot HOFers prior to using steroids. Also, Sammy Sosa just like Ortiz also was not able to stay at the Major League level without steroid use. Of course I am a Yankee fan lol but I am having a part 2 tomorrow out to discuss more about this topic such as Clemens and Bonds. I know that the HOF has character, integrity, good teammate etc on the criteria but that has becoming very hypocritical. I second that it hasn't become hypocritical it has been all along. Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb were on the innagural HOF class in 1936 and they deface every one of those character clauses. There are tons of jerks in the hall. So I just feel the HOF should be about stats only. We can agree to disagree! And that's why these debates are fun! Lastly I believe Salvador Perez will be a no doubter first ballot HOFer. I appreciate your feedback and even though I disagree I have the utmost respect for you voicing your opinion! Thanks for your input Caleb and I'm interested in hearing your feedback for my piece for tomorrow if u want to check it out!
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.
The joke of it is that the the HOF lists integrity, good teammate, sportsmanship etc. as some of their criteria. Yet, the inaugural HOF Class in 1936 had Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb. They deface every one of those character clauses and that was the inaugural HOF class! It took Orlando Cepeda many years to get into the hall bc he had legal troubles and was disliked. Juan Marichal was kept out the first couple years bc he hit Johnny Roseboro over the head the the bat. Those are all ridiculous reasons to keep someone out of the Hall. Also, think of this. Who has a better personal resume? Sammy Sosa or David Ortiz? It's close but I'd go with Sosa. Ortiz had more RBI's but Sosa is in the elusive 600 club. Sosa led the league in runs scored 3 times (Ortiz was an obese slug), Sosa led the league in HR's twice to Ortiz' once, and yes Ortiz led the league thrice in RBI opposed to Sosa's twice but those seasons Sosa drove in 158 and 160 runs. And Ortiz didn't even play the field! They both were PED guys and both were unable to stay at the big league level without PED's. And, the average fan probably forgets that Ortiz spent his first 6 seasons with Minnesota where he was a nothing. Then comes to Boston and starts pounding the cover off the ball. It's not rocket science to figure that one out. Sammy Sosa pretty much the same thing when he was on the South Side of Chicago and when he went to the North Side he morphed into a megastar. So, they both had similar careers yet one is in because he's the "Good Samaritan." And yes people say well Ortiz was a fantastic postseason player. I have no argument on that but the baseball HOF is not about the team stuff. That's where it's prevalent in the football HOF. for instance, Joe Namath, Len Dawson, and Ken Stabler would not be in the pro football HOF if they didn't win a Super Bowl.
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?
Hey Caleb thanks for your feedback. We can agree to disagree. So, yes Ortiz only tested positive once but A-Rod is a far given God gifted athlete. Ortiz was not able to stay at the Major League level if he wasn't juicing. Therefore without steroids he would of been a AAA player. A-Rod like Clemens and Bonds were first ballot HOFers prior to using steroids. Also, Sammy Sosa just like Ortiz also was not able to stay at the Major League level without steroid use. Of course I am a Yankee fan lol but I am having a part 2 tomorrow out to discuss more about this topic such as Clemens and Bonds. I know that the HOF has character, integrity, good teammate etc on the criteria but that has becoming very hypocritical. I second that it hasn't become hypocritical it has been all along. Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb were on the innagural HOF class in 1936 and they deface every one of those character clauses. There are tons of jerks in the hall. So I just feel the HOF should be about stats only. We can agree to disagree! And that's why these debates are fun! Lastly I believe Salvador Perez will be a no doubter first ballot HOFer. I appreciate your feedback and even though I disagree I have the utmost respect for you voicing your opinion! Thanks for your input Caleb and I'm interested in hearing your feedback for my piece for tomorrow if u want to check it out!