Batter's Box Interactive Magazine - Question of the Day: Do DHs belong in the HOF?

Question of the Day: Do DHs belong in the HOF?

Big Papi thinks so, though let's be honest, he probably has a somewhat biased opinion ...

So, who DOES belong? And if, for instance, Edgar or Hurt get in over the next few years (the latter almost certainly will; the former may be a hitmust, er litmus test), then does that open the doors retroactively for the Don Baylors of the world?

DH or not DH (to the Hall) ... that is today's question. Bauxites, over to you ...

Posted by Mick Doherty on Tuesday, April 12 2011 @ 01:18 PM EDT.

Question of the Day: Do DHs belong in the HOF? | 21 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

92-93 - Tuesday, April 12 2011 @ 01:39 PM EDT (#232601) #

This is a silly Q. Of course DHs belong in the Hall of Fame. The standard for the bat should just be higher than any other position.

Mick Doherty - Tuesday, April 12 2011 @ 01:53 PM EDT (#232602) #

Well, it's not a silly question to voters .... there isn't a single primarily-DH in the Hall right now and the rule has been around for four decades. Molitor -- he DH'd more than 1000 times -- is as close as you'll get and he about 1500 games defensively, at every position except catcher and pitcher!

Incidentally, I agree with you that "of course they belong." But they ain't there!

hypobole - Tuesday, April 12 2011 @ 02:01 PM EDT (#232603) #

Is any position player with HOF worthy offensive numbers not in the Hall simply because they were a liability on the field?

AWeb - Tuesday, April 12 2011 @ 02:09 PM EDT (#232605) #

They certainly do belong, but there haven't been many good enough. I think Edgar is as close to a slam dunk as it gets, with Thomas putting in more time in the field and getting "credit" for it, but being an even more obvious choice. Not enough is made of the DH hitting effect, where most players just don't do as well as they normally do (I recall the overall answer confirming this, but whether or not why a player DHs, such as injuries or tiredness, being accounted for).

I don't see DH as being a position that needs representation as much as other ones, since hitters need to be extra good to merit consideration. Luckily, Edgar and Thomas meet this standard. Ortiz may yet defy his apparent death at the start of last season and put in several more very good years, at which point he enters the conversation (note, my hypothetical HoF vote doesn't care about PEDs). For most teams, DH has been a spot to put guys to rest them, to break them into the majors, or to ease them out. DH should be a stacked hitting position, but a lot of years, it just ain't so. I think a lot of it is the players fault no just the teams - they understandably don't want to DH (defensively, there's no where to go but retired).

For me, the historic DHs like Baines and Baylor just weren't good enough. If they played a solid RF, then they would have been borderline. I will say that with the number of closers making it in recent years, there's no reason for DHs to be excluded because they are too specialized. If there was a DH-specific counting stat made up 40 years ago like saves for relievers, although I can't imagine what it would be, voters would have put a bunch in already.

gabrielthursday - Tuesday, April 12 2011 @ 02:15 PM EDT (#232607) #

Of course DHs belong, though Ortiz certainly does not meet the standard -nor does Don Baylor, or any other DH I can think of. The only person who should get in as a DH now is Edgar Martinez - it isn't even close.

Mike Green - Tuesday, April 12 2011 @ 02:39 PM EDT (#232611) #

There's a lot of debate about Edgar.

It's terrible, but the PED thing sure casts a pall over everything about the time. Edgar was a much better hitter from age 35 to 39 (98 to 02) than he was from 25 to 29 (88 to 92). It probably had a lot to do with his struggles defensively at third base when he was young, and the Mariners' curious decision to not give him a chance, rather than PEDs but the suspicion will be there. I would still vote for him.

Paul D - Tuesday, April 12 2011 @ 02:52 PM EDT (#232612) #

Should the standard for DH's bats be higher than that of 1B, despite the fact that DH's, on average, hit less than 1Bs?

robertdudek - Tuesday, April 12 2011 @ 04:33 PM EDT (#232629) #

Frank Thomas' numbers are better than Edgar's, career wise. He also had a higher peak, being one of the best players in baseball from 1991 to 2000.

robertdudek - Tuesday, April 12 2011 @ 04:40 PM EDT (#232630) #

Baines was a pretty good fielder for about 7 years, until he was moved to DH full time. Baines is a lot like Rusty Staub: a long career of being a very good but not great hitter.

But I wouldn't support Baines for the Hall as long as guys like Raines, Trammell, Whitaker and Grich are not in it.

Shrike - Wednesday, April 13 2011 @ 02:33 AM EDT (#232648) #

Edgar Martinez was by any measure a truly phenomenal hitter who meets just about any Hall of Fame standard you'd care to name. And he'd easily get my vote.

Frank Thomas is even more qualified than Edgar.

Magpie - Wednesday, April 13 2011 @ 05:31 AM EDT (#232649) #

It's true that Designated Hitters generally contribute to just one half of the game.

But so do pitchers...

smcs - Wednesday, April 13 2011 @ 09:15 AM EDT (#232656) #

Are there any Hall of Famers with such poor defensive reputations (deserved or otherwise) that they were essentially thought of as designated hitters?

AWeb - Wednesday, April 13 2011 @ 09:49 AM EDT (#232657) #

Are there any Hall of Famers with such poor defensive reputations (deserved or otherwise) that they were essentially thought of as designated hitters? I don't have a huge list off the top of my head, but Harmon Killebrew had that rep (no idea how good/bad he actually was). I've never heard Hank Aaron's defense praised, but I don't remember hearing it ripped either (but then, who rips Hank Aaron?). Babe Ruth maybe? Ted Williams admitted his defense wasn't good. But these are "inner-circle" guys, hard to compare others to without being unfair.
The lower-level hall guys are harder to recall. Jim Rice is recent - my memory of him has him as essentially a DH playing the OF, but he had a better rep earlier in his career, I think. McCovey comes to mind too. I think Edgar and Thomas compare favourably to either guy, although Rice is essentially the bottom of the HoF pile and isn't a great guy to play "if he's in, than XXX player should be in too". Then the HoF gets too big, very quickly.

Mike Green - Wednesday, April 13 2011 @ 10:28 AM EDT (#232658) #

I agree that Frank Thomas was a better player than Edgar. I think of him as a first baseman, even though he had more games as a DH, because his outstanding peak/prime performance of the 90s was accomplished primarily as a first baseman. Frank Thomas should be an easy first-ballot Hall of Famer.

Mick Doherty - Wednesday, April 13 2011 @ 10:45 AM EDT (#232660) #

I've never heard Hank Aaron's defense praised
Well, he did win three Gold Gloves. That's faint praise to be sure, and specious, but I do remember him being considered quite a good gloveman.

Ryan Day - Wednesday, April 13 2011 @ 01:46 PM EDT (#232671) #

Speaking of people who may or may not be hall-of-famers: Carlos Delgado announced his retirement today.

I suspect it'll take a long time for him to get in, if it happens at all. It may depend on how people think of the steroid era in a few years, and whether anyone paid attention to Toronto. He would have had a better shot if he'd managed one more season and got to 500 homers, though I'm glad he didn't drag it out and knew it was time to call it quits.

One of my favourite Blue Jays ever, and I hope we'll see a Delgado Day at the dome this year or next.

Mick Doherty - Wednesday, April 13 2011 @ 01:59 PM EDT (#232673) #

Ryan, check out the headline in the story on the USA TODAY site ...

Slugger Carlos Delgado retires, likely shy of Cooperstown

Lee John - Wednesday, April 13 2011 @ 02:26 PM EDT (#232678) #

This is a silly Q. Of course DHs belong in the Hall of Fame. The standard for the bat should just be higher than any other position.

Absolutely. In fact, I would even say that we have a pretty decent standard for how much better the bat needs to be. Since 1B is the bottom end of the defensive spectrum, IMO a good candidate for a HOF DH should produced value with the bat (i.e. in terms of run creation, however you choose to measure it), over and above what the average HOF 1B has historically produced, equal to or greater than the value of that average 1B's defensive contributions.

Magpie - Thursday, April 14 2011 @ 06:51 AM EDT (#232740) #

Are there any Hall of Famers with such poor defensive reputations (deserved or otherwise) that they were essentially thought of as designated hitters?

No.

There really aren't. Off the top of my head, the Hofers with the worst reputations would probably be Ted Williams, Lou Brock, and Rogers Hornsby. And each of them has - if not defenders exactly, people who will make excuses for their defense.

Dewey - Thursday, April 14 2011 @ 10:29 AM EDT (#232746) #

I was wondering about Hack Wilson. Was he regarded as a good fielder?

Mike Green - Thursday, April 14 2011 @ 10:47 AM EDT (#232750) #

Hack Wilson was regarded as a poor fielder, but he did play centerfield. Harmon Killebrew and Willie Stargell might have spent large portions of their careers as a DH had they played in the American League after 1972 (Killebrew did end his career as a DH, but played most of his career at third and first where he was pretty bad).

Question of the Day: Do DHs belong in the HOF? | 21 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.