Okay, this has nothing to do with the Cubs, but it's interesting to me.
I'm going to post some selected stats for two active players. Both have played primarily first base and designated hitter through their careers. Each has had a career in Major League Baseball spanning at least 18 seasons. Though both have been a part of, shall we say, "controversy" a decade ago, one of these players is frequently touted as a possible Hall of Famer. The other is not. I'm not really advocating one way or the other (though I'll also include the same stats for Edgar Martinez, whom I do believe should be in the Hall), but I think the comparison is interesting.
I'm surprised that Player A and B are so similar, to be honest. But Player B is probably going to fall off the ballot right away. Player A has some World Series rings, for which he probably gets extra credit. But you can make the case that Player B provided more value over his career than Player A (mostly because he spent more time at first base). If Player A is a Hall of Famer, should Player B at least merit consideration? And if Player B is decidedly not a Hall of Famer, don't you also have to dismiss Player A? Ah, the power of narrative.
Player A is David Ortiz.
I'll let you guess at Player B (not that it's difficult)