Does anyone notice how Ortiz is like the only HoF to get appreciably BETTER in his late 30s? I think they do, but with a lot about Ortiz people like to look the other way like they are Sally Jenkins talking about Lance Armstrong. Once you do that well Ortiz is a Hall of Famer, there's no doubt there. In my "Psychology of the Hall of Fame" post Ortiz hits several points. He's not undeniably great or even undeniably great for his position given his time split, or undeniably great at one thing. He DID hit the magic number of 500 homers (541). He was certainly great at the right time as he was basically the face of the curse-breaking Red Sox. If you can twist yourself like a pretzel saying voting for Ortiz is ok and not Clemens or Bonds or A-Rod or Schilling then yes he's easily the best thing left on the ballot. He's remembered for something "great" (the post Marathon speech). It's not close. Again, if you can deny what's in front of you.
Which apparently a lot of people can. I thought the desire to vote for Ortiz would be so strong it would help pull Bonds and Clemens over the finish line. Clearly you would either land on "no cheater" or "ok cheaters" but apparently that wasn't the case. You learn something new everyday and this week I learned not to underestimate the power of hypocrisy.*
ANY WAY
the negotiations are ... ongoing? The players have made concessions. We're waiting to hear from the owners. There's no sense of when the next counter (by the owners) will come but I'd expect early next week.
*It sounds like I'm mad Ortiz is in but I'm really not. (1) I've said many times HoF who cares and I stand by that. I'm not going to walk in an shake my fist at his plaque or anything and (2) I would have put him in (along with all the other cheats). I'm mad that people made a big show to try to prove they were not hypocrites when they clearly are. It's like dealing with a little kid. I'm probably going to care more about if you lie to me than if you did something I don't like.
7 comments:
The Baseball HOF is the only one allowing only legitimately great players in. The football and basketball HOFs have been called the "Halls of Very Good" and that sounds right to me. If people in the far past allowed players in who would now fail on the character clause, then that's past complaining about. Different voters.
Bonds admitted to drug use in court, though claiming he didn't know what he was putting in his body. A-rod was booted for a year. The others had many credible witnesses to their behavior. Ortiz has one unnamed source for his being caught during a non-public test. You're hanging your hat on THAT? Single unnamed sources are what totalitarian governments use to imprison dissidents.
The cheaters made their opponents look less worthy than they should have looked. They also kept others from taking their positions after the cheaters failed to retire when they should have.
If you want to argue that Ortiz was only "very good", I'll listen to that argument, but I'm amazed and happy that enough voters stood up and said they wouldn't reward cheating to keep that obnoxious crew out of the HOF.
I wouldn't have voted in Ortiz, but I take a hard hard no on any and all PED users. (This isn't a morals thing, I don't care about Perry being in the hall).
I really like that baseball (unlike football and hockey) doesn't require that players do long-run damage to their bodies to play. Steroids are really really bad for your (long run) health. And since player salaries and fame are a zero-sum game, when other players are cheating that puts a lot of pressure on the clean ones (like, say Bonds watching McGuire + Sosa get attention and $ even though he was clearly a better player leading to his decision to use).
So for me, that means it's in the public good to have the toughest possible punishments for steroid use (I'd advocate for immediate lifetime bans plus bans from the hall for positive tests). Keep them all out.
(For those curious, I have consistent opinions about amphetamines, bowling over the catcher, intentional HBPs, etc). But cutting baseballs or stealing signs? Eh.
Harper, that's a lot of feels for something you don't care about, lol. Let's compare Manny Ramirez to Ortiz. Manny: annoying, 555 home runs, 624 Off (the offensive component of WAR at fangraphs= batting + baserunning). Ortiz, charming, 508 HR, 408 Off. Even if they were both DHs, it's not even close. Quiz: which one was a first ballot HOF?
Papi is a cool guy though. Good for baseball, etc. Just don't ask me about Sheffield. Bonkers.
@billyhacker: I think you nailed it. While you can look at something objective like JAWS for someone where their persona is neutral to the public and journalists, when it comes to polarizing people like Bonds, Clemens, and Schilling, the voters are pretty heavily biased against them and will use any excuse at their disposal to keep them out. When it comes to someone fairly universally popular like Ortiz, they'll find a way to get him in.
@Kubla said it exactly right. And anything else is just post hoc rationalization.
A Hall of Fame with Harold Baines but not Barry Bonds...really?
@Jim, did Baines use steroids also? I must have missed that.
Post a Comment