I don't think anyone swiped at Ortiz, at least recently, but I will pick a bone with the idea of Edgar Martinez being in the Hall, because he's a marginal choice at the very best and I'm rapidly becoming convinced he isn't even that (and, in any event, voting for Edgar on a ballot with at least 11 locks and several more clearly more deserving / less marginal players than him is moronic).
Based on the usual traditional milestones, the answer to his candidacy is rather clearly no, and frankly, it's not even all that close. You just don't get in as a 2,200-hit, 300-dinger, 1,200-RBI post-war guy when career hitting value encompasses your entire case. You need more, some kind of reason: You could get in if you added value elsewhere or had one hell of a narrative, and you might even get in if you pulled in some award hardware, but Edgar Martinez doesn't really have any of that. To the extent that he's carried support, it's in large part because of the aforementioned argument that "he's the best DH ever," so the funny thing is that if Martinez were just a bad 1B, he'd have much less support than he actually has.
In terms of just putting him in because of a blanket "great offensive guy reasoning"... it's not really there. He's 59th in career runs created, which sounds really high -- until you consider that that's behind ballot contemporaries like Fred McGriff and Luis Gonzalez, who also have at least some defensive value. Martinez is generally treated somewhat kinder in rate stats that don't dock him for a relatively short career: T-41st in OPS+, T-57th in wOBA, T-34th in wRC+, 60th in offensive winning percentage. But those aren't really blow-away numbers, and you don't have to stretch far at all to find an eligible player who has a similar but superior case that isn't in the Hall, and that would be Dick Allen.
I'm not saying Martinez is someone to rally for or rally against. He's a guy for whom you can make a statistical case that I think is definitely questionable, but at least it's not outright insane
in the same way that, say, Jim Rice was an insane case.
As for Ortiz ... he'll be the worst position player ever elected by the writers (and certainly one of the shortest-tenured -- he's only had ten years of being really good
), but he has a lovable, cozy relationship with the media, and because of that and the ~postseason magic~
narrative case, he'll get Jim Rice'd in, but probably not until the third or fourth ballot at the soonest -- that Ortiz could only have had the career he's had in one of the two leagues does
matter, to some extent or another.
Which will make the "Sacred Hall of Fame" argument put forth by lunkheaded fucksticks like Shaughnessy and Chass even more ludicrous than it already is.
Alidar Jarok wrote:
I kind of wonder how much his low win total is attributable to playing on the Phillies.
I think that's a huge factor. The Phillies averaged 71 wins a year during Schilling's tenure, and that number drops to about 68 when you remove 1993 from the equation. They were a very, very bad team for a very, very
long time, and Schilling is far from the first pitcher to have his win totals wrecked by pitching for a shitty team.