David Ortiz is not a Hall of Famer

A recent hot topic on Boston sports radio is whether or not David Ortiz is worth of induction in the National Baseball Hall of Fame.  I don't know what the national perception of Ortiz's career is, but in Boston, most people seem to think he deserves to be in Cooperstown one day.  Ortiz was also reported to have tested positive for PEDs in 2003, but I don't think he belongs in the HOF regardless of PED use.

Ortiz made his MLB debut in 1997 for the Minnesota Twins and played his first full season in 2000.  In 2000, he hit .282, belting 10 home runs and driving in 63 runs.  He had a WAR of 0.7.  For the next two years, Ortiz put up somewhat similar stats (his power numbers were increasing) and he was hankered by a wrist injury.  After the 2002 season, he was released by the Twins.

A little over a month after his release, the Boston Red Sox signed Ortiz.  He entered the 2003 season in a position battle over DH with Jeremy Giambi.  By July, Ortiz had beaten out Giambi for the starting job and his Red Sox career took off.  As we all know the Sox would go on to win two rings with Ortiz being a major driving force.  In 2006, he hit 54 home runs to lead the American League.  He has been a 9-time All-Star since joining the Red Sox and finished second in the MVP voting in 2005.  At the time of writing, Ortiz's Red Sox career has seen a .292 average with 369 home runs.  He's gotten 1613 hits (average of 147 per season) and has a WAR of 41.0 over that time.

So he's got pretty good numbers.  And baseball is indeed a numbers game.  But when I think of what makes a Hall of Famer, I think of longevity*.  Greatness over the span of say, 15 years.  Ortiz has greatness over the span of roughly 10 seasons--not cutting it, in my book.  And I'm not even sure I'd classify Ortiz as "greatness"--more like "really really really good."  There is a difference.  He just doesn't pass the eye-test for me.  Baseball-Reference similar players for every player, and the top 5 similar batters for Ortiz are Lance Berkman, Carlos Delgado, Jason Giambi, Jim Edmonds, and Paul Konerko.  Most people can agree that all of those players are really nice players, but none of them are HOFers.  With the exception of Giambi due to his off-the-field issues (read: doping), those players probably won't even be remembered in 20 years.

*There are, in certain cases, situations where longevity can be replaced by complete dominance and the unfortunate case of a career being cut short.  The obvious example of this is Sandy Koufax, who wins most kitchen debates of "Game 7 of the World Series, who do you pitch?"  I call this being a transcendent talent--a once in every 50 years type of player--and in the absence of longevity, you'd better be transcendent to make the Hall of Fame.  Another more recent example of a transcendent talent would be Ken Griffey, Jr..  While he played 22 seasons, Griffey demonstrated the amazing talent he was in the 1990s before running into injuries.

Now there is also the issue of Ortiz's position.  He is, through and through, a designated hitter.  His job is to hit.  When forced to, he is a below average fielder at first base, he's slow, and I'm going to guess he doesn't have the best arm.  So we're looking at Ortiz fulfilling 1 to 2 of the 5 "tools" that are deemed essential to baseball players.  Based on this, he better be the best hitter of the last 20 years to get into the HOF, but we've already deduced that his numbers don't put him anywhere near this category.  Failing that longevity, he needs to be a transcendent talent, and I don't think anyone will argue with me if I say that he is not a once-in-a-generation type of hitter (he wasn't even the best hitter on his team for a good chunk of his career).

There is something to be said for the best player at each position getting into the Hall of Fame.  Ortiz is certainly in the discussion for best DH, the other major candidate being Edgar Martinez.  There are two issues with this argument: first, the DH has only been around for 40 years, which is a short period of time in the history of baseball and second, the number of players who are only DHs is few.  Teams simply don't sign players to play DH because they aren't that valuable; they're better off signing a good hitter who can also play in the field to platoon with another player (think carrying four solid outfielders).  So saying that Ortiz is the greatest DH of all time is a little bit of a misnomer because there simply haven't been that many players defined as DHs.  Another thing to consider is that Ortiz has never won an MVP, which might be indicative of the way baseball writers value the DH.

Time will tell what the lasting opinion of David Ortiz is.  If he has another 5 seasons in line with what he's been doing the previous five, I could be convinced that he deserves a slot.  But, he'll be 43 at that time, and if he's hitting the way he is now at that age, I think some people will be scratching their heads as to how natural he is (that is, if they weren't already, based on the previously mentioned allegations).  I also am unsure of how the voters will rate post-season productivity: Ortiz's post-season numbers are pretty much in line with his career numbers, but his World Series numbers are better than his career averages (albeit with a small sample size--28 at bats and 34 plate appearances).

Thanks to baseball-reference.com for the stats.