With the Hall of Fame candidacy of Edgar Martinez -- and the upcoming candidacy of David Ortiz, in all likelihood -- the discussion seems to center around the polarizing notion of a full-time designated hitter being inducted into the Hall of Fame.
Yes, Frank Thomas has already made it into the Hall, but he played 971 games at first base. Jim Thome might be headed that way, but he was only a DH in 818 games compared to 1106 at first and 493 at third.
With Martinez, he only played the field in 592 games compared to 1403 at DH. So the dissent on his Hall of Fame candidacy would be that he was such a terrible fielder he couldn't be trusted on defense, meaning he can't actually be a Hall of Famer. The sidecar to such sentiment is that baseball players are supposed to be two-way players, not one-dimensional.
The problem with the argument is that it is cherry-picked to harm DHs. The line of thinking ignores how we've always judged Hall of Famers. There are dozens of one-dimensional players already in the Hall.
Just for a quick-and-dirty comparison, let's grab some guys with similar career OPS+ figures as Martinez and take a look.
Martinez had a 147 career OPS+.
Ralph Kiner's OPS+ was 149. By most accounts, he was a liability in the outfield. He was plagued by injuries throughout his career, notably his back, was slow and is said to have had a weak arm. The available metrics on his range aren't kind in the least, either. Basically, he was a very bad defender and was playing through back issues. Wouldn't he have been a DH? Why is it better that he was hurting his team on defense?
See where this is headed?
Harry Heilmann had a career OPS+ of 148 and, again, the defensive metrics available paint the picture of a poor defender.
Willie Stargell had the same 147 OPS+ Edgar Martinez did. His fielding percentage was well below league average, metrics reveal very limited range and he was hampered by injuries through much of his career. It's hard to honestly say that Stargell wouldn't have been a regular DH had he played a bit later and in the AL.
Willie McCovey also had a 147 OPS+. He was below average in fielding percentage and also lacked range. On McCovey from The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract:
"He was a hard-working first baseman who could stretch halfway to the pitcher's mound to get a throw, but he did not have good hands, a strong arm or any innate quickness."
James actually notes how much better McCovey would have been in the era of the DH.
Hack Wilson sits at a 144 OPS+ and also shows a below-average fielding percentage with a lack of range for his position.
All of the above players mentioned would have been more valuable to their respective teams as a DH, in theory. It simply wasn't an option. For the Mariners and Martinez, it was an option. He was a poor defender but one of the best hitters in the league. So the team extracted the maximum amount of value out of Martinez by only using him with the bat. You don't make terrible baserunners routinely attempt to steal second, so they didn't make Martinez field.
Now, it could be said that McCovey, Stargell et al should have been DHs, but they weren't. So there's the jumping off point for keeping Martinez out of the Hall.
Here's where I ask: Wasn't Martinez more valuable to his team by not fielding? Yes, he was. Wouldn't Kiner and Wilson have been more valuable if they were at DH? Yes, I believe they would have been.
So are we seriously saying Martinez shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame because he didn't hurt his team more often on defense? Think about it. Had he played full time in the field, I can almost guarantee that he'd have been awful on defense and he'd be getting a lot more consideration for the Hall of Fame.
If you want to argue that Martinez falls short as a hitter, have at it. If the argument is that he was an incomplete player, it doesn't work. There are already many incomplete players in the Hall of Fame who are only there because of gaudy offensive numbers. Martinez has those. He also has an unfair DH stigma attached to him. Let's hope that stops at some point.
