Hall of Fame - 2022 Ballot

[Natsinpwc]

WRT to Ortiz, he tested positive in 2003 in a test that MLB has said wasn't accurate and produced at least 10 false positives. He never again failed a test. I think he gets a pass. There's no comparison with Clemens, A-Rod, or Bonds.

I thought his story was that he was taking over the counter stuff. I am sure it was all just a coincidence at the time his stats took a major upswing as he was approaching 30. (That is sarcasm).

[HalfSmokes]

WRT to Ortiz, he tested positive in 2003 in a test that MLB has said wasn't accurate and produced at least 10 false positives. He never again failed a test. I think he gets a pass. There's no comparison with Clemens, A-Rod, or Bonds.

Half the guys they are keeping out never had a positive

[Ali the Baseball Cat]

Oh good more grist for the bogus grievance mill

And it's over for Curt Schilling who on baseball career stats alone should have gotten in.

[imref]

Half the guys they are keeping out never had a positive

but they were implicated in other ways. Ortiz has never had any blemish other than the 2003 test.

[UMDNats]

Old white guy baseball writers wiping their hands as their life's work is now complete

[HalfSmokes]

but they were implicated in other ways. Ortiz has never had any blemish other than the 2003 test.

Sure he never had any blemish other than the time he tested positive.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

WRT to Ortiz, he tested positive in 2003 in a test that MLB has said wasn't accurate and produced at least 10 false positives. He never again failed a test. I think he gets a pass. There's no comparison with Clemens, A-Rod, or Bonds.

at the start of testing, there was also a disproportionate flunks from Latin-American and Caribbean players.  There likely was an issue of OTC supplements at the time.  As big as Ortiz was, his body looked like it aged naturally to me.  He was always going to be huge. 

I think there's a fair line to judge, say, A-Rod and Manny more critically than Ortiz because they flunked after testing officially started. Palmeiro too. As for Bonds and Clemens, the evidence is more or less court testimony and the Mitchell Report.  I don't think anyone ever sued MLB or Mitchell claiming the report was false and defamatory. 

[Natsinpwc]

If FP was juicing we know basically everyone was.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

I thought his story was that he was taking over the counter stuff. I am sure it was all just a coincidence at the time his stats took a major upswing as he was approaching 30. (That is sarcasm).

Ortiz was 27 at the time he went to the Red Sox and was 20 HRs in 466 PAs.  The Red Sox hitting coach at the time claims they saw a hole in his swing and more or less fixed it.  TBH, the bigger outlier in his statistics is his career coming back at age 35 after a downish 2008-2010.  But there isn't a sexy drug test tied to it, so you don't hear much of the cynics talking about that.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

Sure he never had any blemish other than the time he tested positive.

are there any leaked names who didn't fail again later other than Ortiz. IIRC, it was him, Manny, and A-Rod.  Somehow leaked to NYC papers. 

BTW, on top of everything, that evidence was illegally seized.

[Natsinpwc]

Ortiz was 27 at the time he went to the Red Sox and was 20 HRs in 466 PAs.  The Red Sox hitting coach at the time claims they saw a hole in his swing and more or less fixed it.  TBH, the bigger outlier in his statistics is his career coming back at age 35 after a downish 2008-2010.  But there isn't a sexy drug test tied to it, so you don't hear much of the cynics talking about that.

He found some good stuff at 35 then too.

Of course I believe Cal Ripken was juicing also.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

Ortiz was 27 at the time he went to the Red Sox and was 20 HRs in 466 PAs. 

To be clear, that's his year prior to going to the Red Sox (age 26).

Yesterday, Gammons showed an old video of a home run derby in 1996 in Wisconsin's low A or rookie level with Ken Griffey (rehab, I guess), A-Rod, and David Arias (before he took Ortiz as his Anglo name). Arias won.

[imref]

Sure he never had any blemish other than the time he tested positive.

in a test with a lot of false positives

[Five Banners]

WRT to Ortiz, he tested positive in 2003 in a test that MLB has said wasn't accurate and produced at least 10 false positives. He never again failed a test. I think he gets a pass. There's no comparison with Clemens, A-Rod, or Bonds.

Just on the testing basis, all of them passed the vast majority of their testing, and Clemens reportedly never failed a test, so there’s that. As far as Ortiz, I thought it interesting that Manfred was the one pointing that out about Ortiz at a particular time.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/17706532/david-ortiz-says-did-wrong-03-failed-drug-test

Given his recent history dealing with scandals, this particular purveyor of the piece of metal has not necessarily seemed to be someone worthy of deference on the matter and to trust with transparency and full disclosure as far as baseball rule infractions.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

https://twitter.com/JoeGiza/status/790709835348180992?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1485676557419130884%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.boston.com%2Fsports%2Fboston-red-sox%2F2022%2F01%2F26%2Fdavid-ortiz-chad-finn-column%2F

it's a video of Theo Epstein meeting David Ortiz for the first time in spring training 2003.  Ortiz doesn't look all that huge relative to earlier video of him.  I just don't see the "it was all the juice that led to his breakout" as having any basis in that video.  His body seemed to grow naturally.  It's not like Bonds head size exploding. 

[imref]

Zuck shares his ballot and his reasoning. I agree with his votes except I wouldn't have voted for Schilling this time around but I would have voted for Kent.

https://www.masnsports.com/nationals-pastime/2022/01/my-2022-hall-of-fame-ballot.html

[HalfSmokes]

His logic for Ortiz has just the right level of sanctimony for a hall of fame voter.

[Natsinpwc]

His logic for Ortiz has just the right level of sanctimony for a hall of fame voter.

I think there was even more of that in the Bonds discussion. I did reconsider but my explanation is exactly the same. LOL. No you really did not reconsider at all. Just be honest. He seems to give Ortiz a pass because he mostly played in an era when there was testing. What kind of logic is that? Ultimately it is the fault of MLB and not the writers because they allowed PED use.  Now it’s up to baseball writers to make up their own rules about the era.

[HalfSmokes]

I can now say that the greatest players from the era when I first started watching baseball are now all excluded from the hall.

[blue911]

I think there was even more of that in the Bonds discussion. I did reconsider but my explanation is exactly the same. LOL. No you really did not reconsider at all. Just be honest. He seems to give Ortiz a pass because he mostly played in an era when there was testing. What kind of logic is that? Ultimately it is the fault of MLB and not the writers because they allowed PED use.  Now it’s up to baseball writers to make up their own rules about the era.

While rampant disregard of the rules can be laid at the feet of MLB, the Hall is solely responsible for it’s admission standards. And to that end, Jane Forbes Clark is the person who abdicated the Hall’s responsibility for ensuring standards are applied equally to all candidates.

[Natsinpwc]

While rampant disregard of the rules can be laid at the feet of MLB, the Hall is solely responsible for it’s admission standards. And to that end, Jane Forbes Clark is the person who abdicated the Hall’s responsibility for ensuring standards are applied equally to all candidates.

I am sure the MLB has influence with the HOF.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

While rampant disregard of the rules can be laid at the feet of MLB, the Hall is solely responsible for it’s admission standards. And to that end, Jane Forbes Clark is the person who abdicated the Hall’s responsibility for ensuring standards are applied equally to all candidates.

It's not a standard, tbh.  It's voters minds.  All of these guys were on the ballot.  It's not like they kept juicers and wackos off the ballot.  66% of the voters supported Bonds and Clemens, and last year Schilling drew 71%. 75% is hard.  Even "wrong track" doesn't get 75%. 

I think one the things Ortiz had that others didn't was his personality and storyline. Honestly, can you find anyone in baseball who felt he was a jerk?  The post-season results are legendary, from Games 4 and 5 of the 2004 ALCS to the 2013 grand slam against the Tigers that saved that series.  Add in "this is our f'ng city", maybe even surviving the shooting too, and I don't think it is a mystery why slightly more voters (about 10%) were more inclined to say the only evidence against him was subject to too much skepticism to hold it against him.  Sure, Bonds and Clemens were acquitted, and everyone on earth recognizes those two have accomplishments comparable to any "inner circle" hall of famer while Ortiz doesn't, but 10% of the voters held something against them that they didn't against Ortiz.  Probably grudges more than anything rational.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

https://www.milb.com/news/big-papi-stole-spotlight-as-first-year-pro-in-minor-leagues-313304292

Story about the home run derby in Appleton, Wisconsin, against A-Rod and Griffey.

[Senatorswin]

He found some good stuff at 35 then too.

Of course I believe Cal Ripken was juicing also.

I had to laugh when I saw this. Years ago on the old MLB Nats board I said I believed Cal Ripken took steroids. Some Oriole fans saw it. You would of thought I just shot Abraham Lincoln while he was trying to check out a play. They did not like any accusations against Sir Cal.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

He broke the consecutive game record in 1995. That was early on in the ped era. I don't think he had much help in the 80s. Certainly did not look it