David Ortiz - Hall of Famer?

Over on the Projo Bulletin board, there's been a bit of a discussion about whether or not David Ortiz is a potential Hall of Famer. And the comparison that comes up is, of course, Jim Rice.

Some people are going to be surprised or offended by this, but here it comes:

David Ortiz has been a much better hitter than Jim Rice.

I don't know if Ortiz will be a Hall of Famer some day. But I'll say this - he's done enough through age 31 for it not to be a ludicrous question. Let's look, briefly, at what Ortiz has done vs. Jim Rice (who is, in my opinion, not a Hall of Famer, but is close, and will probably get in next year.)

Stat comparison, David Ortiz vs. Jim Rice

	G	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	BA	OBP	SLG	*OPS+
Ortiz through age 31	1192	4215	738	1219	315	12	266	880	651	.289	.384	.559	139
Rice through age 31	1493	5963	921	1804	272	69	304	1076	451	.303	.353	.524	133
Best five contiguous
Ortiz 2003-2007	737	2738	523	826	207	9	208	642	465	.302	.402	.612	156
Rice1975-1979	778	3085	509	958	147	48	171	570	232	.311	.360	.556	142
Best five overall
Ortiz	737	2738	523	826	207	9	208	642	465	.302	.402	.612	156
Rice	793	3184	530	1011	166	39	183	619	282	.318	.374	.567	147

We include OPS+ because that adjusts for league context, and Ortiz has certainly played in a higher offense era than Rice did. Regardless, as compared to their contextual cohort, Ortiz has had a much higher peak than Rice did.

Ortiz vs. Rice - OPS+, best five

Ortiz	Rice
171	157
161	154
158	147
145	141
144	136

At Ortiz' age, Rice had better counting stats by virtue of having played in more games. But his rate stats weren't anywhere near as good, led by the huge difference in OBP. And not all of the counting stats were better - despite the huge plate appearance discrepancy for Rice, Ortiz had 200 more walks. It's clear that Rice never had five years as good as Ortiz' last five, never mind five consecutive that good.

The offensive era means that it's easier for Ortiz to put up big offensive numbers than it was for Rice. Even given so, the comparison to league context suggests that Ortiz has been a better hitter. Rice gets an advantage because he played more defense and did less DHing than Ortiz - on the other hand, he didn't have much defensive value. Rice also took enormous advantage of an extreme hitter's park for his best seasons. During his five-year peak, Fenway played extremely small, and he hit 60% more home runs at home than he did on the road. Ortiz, on the other hand, has seen his power production suppressed at home. Rice hit one home run for every 14.28 at-bats at home during those seasons, but only one in every 24.17 AB on the road. Ortiz has hit one in every 11.69 AB on the road during his five year peak, and only one for every 15.02 AB at home. Big advantage to Ortiz.



Obviously, Ortiz has not done enough yet to be considered a Hall of Famer. But it's not difficult to imagine him doing so. Another 6-7 years comparable to the last five would probably do it. Whether he can do that or not is tough to say. It's not hard to imagine him dropping into the Mo Vaughn "body-just-won't-hold-up" category, but, on the other hand, he's just DHing the vast majority of the time. And he has a couple of intangibles that compare favorably with Rice's "most feared hitter in baseball" thing. For one, everyone watching considers him one of the great clutch hitters of all time, and there's no question that he's hit several memorable big late-inning home runs over the past few years. And he was a key player on two World Series winning teams (so far.) I'd say that Ortiz is in a decent place as far as being a potential Hall of Famer - he's reached age 31, it's a legitimate question, and sustaining current demonstrated performance would very probably get him in...