Fred McGriff--HOF?

[brett]

I like Bagwell's run a little better on paper. He also was a pretty good baserunner which may have shown up in value in other ways. Mize with solid war credit years probably would be quite similar.

[SABR Matt]

Both players are very close to Murray...Murray lasted a lot longer producing value...Bagwell produced at a higher level for longer...I could see the argument there...and with war Credit the same for Mize could probably be said. BTW nice graphic! I should hire you to make the graphics for my next book.

[brett]

Here's Murray's career...but order by Win Count...same will follow for Mize, McCovey and Bagwell:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1984 AL 14.04 1.94 23.6 2.3 15.98
1985 AL 12.82 1.79 21.4 2.1 14.61
1983 AL 12.62 1.72 20.9 2.0 14.34
1990 NL 11.32 0.63 18.6 -0.2 11.95
1982 AL 9.67 2.07 15.4 2.7 11.74
1978 AL 9.26 0.88 14.2 0.1 10.14
1979 AL 7.22 2.47 10.1 3.4 9.69
1986 AL 7.76 1.15 11.8 1.1 8.91
1980 AL 8.78 -0.12 13.2 -1.7 8.66
1988 AL 7.46 0.94 10.6 0.9 8.40
1987 AL 6.69 1.54 9.0 1.6 8.23
1981 AL 6.19 1.32 9.7 1.7 7.51
1992 NL 6.75 0.44 9.5 -0.5 7.19
1989 NL 5.97 0.83 7.6 0.1 6.80
1993 NL 5.57 0.87 7.0 0.3 6.44
1977 AL 6.15 -0.11 8.1 -0.6 6.04
1991 NL 4.29 1.12 4.5 0.8 5.41
1995 AL 4.41 0.16 5.8 0.2 4.57
1996 AL 1.91 0.00 -0.2 0.0 1.91
1994 AL 1.05 0.09 -0.9 -0.1 1.14

Johnny Mize:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1939 NL 13.34 1.62 22.4 1.8 14.96
1948 NL 12.90 1.48 21.6 1.5 14.38
1947 NL 13.08 1.02 22.0 0.5 14.10
1940 NL 13.04 1.00 21.9 0.5 14.04
1937 NL 13.15 0.73 22.4 0.0 13.88
1942 NL 11.29 1.85 18.7 2.4 13.14
1946 NL 10.60 1.96 18.4 3.0 12.56
1938 NL 10.37 1.91 16.9 2.4 12.28
1941 NL 8.27 2.00 13.1 2.8 10.27
1936 NL 8.72 0.77 14.5 0.5 9.49
1949 NL 4.08 1.63 5.4 2.3 5.71
1950 AL 4.20 0.68 6.5 0.8 4.88
1951 AL 3.13 0.83 3.9 0.9 3.96
1952 AL 0.99 0.42 1.0 0.6 1.41

Of course this doesn't include war credit, so Mize is probably going to move up if you prefer to give war credit.

Mize sustained his peak performance better than Murray did...but they did both peak in the same general area and Murray has more playing time at the "above average to very good" skill ranges which scores him a lot of points.

Willie McCovey:
Yr Lg Off Def O-HOF D-HOF Wins
1969 NL 16.08 0.78 28.2 0.2 16.86
1968 NL 12.81 1.55 21.8 1.7 14.36
1966 NL 12.92 0.85 22.1 0.4 13.77
1970 NL 12.18 1.01 20.3 0.7 13.19
1963 NL 9.26 0.99 14.6 0.4 10.25
1965 NL 8.26 1.34 12.5 1.3 9.60
1967 NL 8.64 0.85 13.9 0.5 9.49
1974 NL 8.21 0.42 13.6 -0.1 8.63
1973 NL 8.09 0.52 13.0 0.0 8.61
1977 NL 5.45 0.54 7.4 -0.1 5.99
1971 NL 5.41 0.34 8.3 -0.2 5.75
1959 NL 4.93 0.75 8.5 1.0 5.68
1975 NL 4.26 0.91 5.5 0.8 5.17
1961 NL 3.70 1.37 5.0 2.0 5.07
1962 NL 3.79 0.55 5.9 0.5 4.34
1960 NL 3.62 0.42 5.3 0.2 4.04
1964 NL 3.20 0.51 3.6 0.1 3.71
1979 NL 2.94 0.71 3.4 0.6 3.65
1972 NL 2.64 0.18 3.4 -0.3 2.82
1978 NL 2.16 0.54 1.8 0.3 2.70
1976 NL 1.07 0.39 0.7 0.3 1.46

McCovey is similar to Murray in terms of career shape but Murray's peak was mostly better and Murray's sustained performance level was a good notch better than McCovey's (a typical Murray season was good for 7 wins...a typical McCovey season only 5). And part of that is defense (Murray, in his prime was a roughly average fielder...McCovey very rarely approached average as noted by the preponderance of near-zero marker scores for defense, meaning he was around halfway between average and the margin a lot of the time). It should be noted that I make a linear adjustment to defensive and pitching marker points to make it so that the ratio of offensive to defensive (at each position) marker points is the same as the ratio of offensive wins (by normalized PCA) to defensive wins (at each position)...this is necessary because when you start multiplying wins by an exchange rate that is non-linear, you exaggerate the importance of great offense relative to great defense. The effect on first basemen is to slightly increase the difference between bad and good fielding first basemen in the rankings.

Jeff Bagwell:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1996 NL 14.51 1.65 24.5 1.7 16.16
1994 NL 12.57 2.47 22.1 3.9 15.04
1999 NL 13.20 0.41 21.8 -0.7 13.61
1997 NL 12.91 0.68 21.3 -0.2 13.59
1998 NL 10.07 1.89 16.0 2.4 11.96
2000 NL 9.71 1.38 14.9 1.2 11.09
1992 NL 7.96 2.25 11.5 3.0 10.21
1991 NL 8.04 1.90 12.0 2.4 9.94
2001 NL 8.33 1.28 12.1 1.0 9.61
1993 NL 7.19 2.39 10.5 3.4 9.58
2002 NL 8.24 1.04 12.1 0.6 9.28
2003 NL 7.01 1.74 9.6 2.0 8.75
1995 NL 7.66 0.98 11.9 0.8 8.64
2004 NL 5.75 0.62 7.2 -0.2 6.37

Bagwell's peak was pretty similar to Murray's peak. But Bagwell didn't last anywhere near as long (offset slightly by the fact that he sustained his best performance a little longer than Murray did). Bagwell was a noticeably better fielder than Murray, but I'm not sure it had the impact some here at Fever have theorized.

Did we have McGriff's posted at some point?

[SABR Matt]

Oh...no I hadn't posted McGriff's but here it is:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1989 AL 13.79 2.03 23.3 2.5 15.82
1990 AL 12.32 2.31 20.5 3.2 14.63
1988 AL 10.08 1.96 16.2 2.5 12.04
1991 NL 10.19 0.74 16.3 0.0 10.93
1999 AL 9.91 0.31 15.9 -0.6 10.22
1993 NL 8.94 0.86 13.9 0.3 9.80
1994 NL 8.57 0.76 14.1 0.4 9.33
1992 NL 9.14 0.13 14.3 -1.2 9.27
1995 NL 4.82 3.00 5.8 4.6 7.82
1996 NL 5.75 1.93 7.1 2.3 7.68
2002 NL 5.90 0.67 8.0 0.1 6.57
2001 AL 5.82 0.69 9.2 0.7 6.51
2000 AL 5.78 -0.19 7.4 -1.8 5.59
1997 NL 4.48 0.81 4.9 0.2 5.29
1998 AL 4.05 0.32 4.0 -0.7 4.37
1987 AL 4.04 0.24 5.8 0.4 4.28
2001 NL 2.00 0.32 2.7 0.2 2.32
2003 NL 1.82 0.07 1.6 -0.6 1.89

McGriff is sort of a blend between McCovey and Murray...not as long a peak as Murray (or as long a career)...kind of a weak career tail like McCovey.

[brett]

BTW nice graphic! I should hire you to make the graphics for my next book.

Let me know if your serious. I wrote 5 chapters of an illustrated high school chemistry textbook and the figures and graphics are my forte'.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Oh...no I hadn't posted McGriff's but here it is:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1989 AL 13.79 2.03 23.3 2.5 15.82
1990 AL 12.32 2.31 20.5 3.2 14.63
1988 AL 10.08 1.96 16.2 2.5 12.04
1991 NL 10.19 0.74 16.3 0.0 10.93
1999 AL 9.91 0.31 15.9 -0.6 10.22
1993 NL 8.94 0.86 13.9 0.3 9.80
1994 NL 8.57 0.76 14.1 0.4 9.33
1992 NL 9.14 0.13 14.3 -1.2 9.27
1995 NL 4.82 3.00 5.8 4.6 7.82
1996 NL 5.75 1.93 7.1 2.3 7.68
2002 NL 5.90 0.67 8.0 0.1 6.57
2001 AL 5.82 0.69 9.2 0.7 6.51
2000 AL 5.78 -0.19 7.4 -1.8 5.59
1997 NL 4.48 0.81 4.9 0.2 5.29
1998 AL 4.05 0.32 4.0 -0.7 4.37
1987 AL 4.04 0.24 5.8 0.4 4.28
2001 NL 2.00 0.32 2.7 0.2 2.32
2003 NL 1.82 0.07 1.6 -0.6 1.89

McGriff is sort of a blend between McCovey and Murray...not as long a peak as Murray (or as long a career)...kind of a weak career tail like McCovey.

If "McGriff is sort of a blend between McCovey and Murray' isn't that a defacto positive endorsement for McGriff's HoF candidacy? :shrug:

[SABR Matt]

Let me know if your serious. I wrote 5 chapters of an illustrated high school chemistry textbook and the figures and graphics are my forte'.

I actually am serious. I'm TERRIBLE at presenting my data in a crisp published format.

As I start looking for outlets to communicate my findings, a sabermetrical primer publication is turning into the long term solution. But I'm definitely gonna need help with the graphics...LOL

[SABR Matt]

If "McGriff is sort of a blend between McCovey and Murray' isn't that a defacto positive endorsement for McGriff's HoF candidacy? :shrug:

I meant in terms of shape of career...he's like a blend between McCovey's weak tail (not good) and Murray's mediocre prime (also not good) while lacking either of their longevity (equally not good).

[henrich]

# Last Name First H-Factor
1 Gehrig Lou 20504
2 Foxx Jimmie 16790
3 Murray Eddie 13756
4 Thomas Frank 13075
5 Anson Cap 12823
6 Mize Johnny 12524
7 Palmeiro Rafael 12333
8 Perez Tony 11940
9 Cepeda Orlando 11742
10 Banks Ernie 11717
11 Killebrew Harmon 11649
12 Bagwell Jeff 11606
13 Garvey Steve 11605
14 Greenberg Hank 11352
15 McGriff Fred 10948
16 Carew Rod 10930
17 Sisler George 10845
18 Hodges Gil 10839
19 McCovey Willie 10739
20 Brouthers Dan 10736
21 McGwire Mark 10477
22 Connor Roger 10438
23 Hernandez Keith 10427
24 Thome Jim 10319
25 Beckley Jake 10273
Here's my top 25. This is updated thru 2008 with playoffs, awards and league leading stats not included yet.

I find it interesting to note that McCovey ranks 19th to McGriff's 15th and that Murray sails in at #3 overall.

I see Hodges making it soon, McGwire and Palmeiro have a real shot depending on PED's

Thome, Thomas, and Bagwell of course aren't eligible yet (active), which leaves us Garvey and Hernandez.

I think both have a real shot at the Veteran's committee in the future.

[RuthMayBond]

# Last Name First H-Factor
1 Gehrig Lou 20504
2 Foxx Jimmie 16790
3 Murray Eddie 13756
4 Thomas Frank 13075
5 Anson Cap 12823
6 Mize Johnny 12524
7 Palmeiro Rafael 12333
8 Perez Tony 11940
9 Cepeda Orlando 11742
10 Banks Ernie 11717
11 Killebrew Harmon 11649
12 Bagwell Jeff 11606
13 Garvey Steve 11605
14 Greenberg Hank 11352
15 McGriff Fred 10948
16 Carew Rod 10930
17 Sisler George 10845
18 Hodges Gil 10839
19 McCovey Willie 10739
20 Brouthers Dan 10736
21 McGwire Mark 10477
22 Connor Roger 10438
23 Hernandez Keith 10427
24 Thome Jim 10319
25 Beckley Jake 10273
Here's my top 25. This is updated thru 2008 with playoffs, awards and league leading stats not included yet.

Cepeda 11 spots ahead of Brouthers (and 10 ahead of McCovey) tells us all we need to know

[PVNICK]

Thanks for the Murray data and comparisons even if it wasn't in response to my query. His overlong tail end as a DH perhaps in search of the 500 HR and 3000 hit plateaus obscures the fact that in his prime he was as good a first baseman as all but probably less than 5 of the countless men that have played the posiiton on a reguilar basis.

[brett]

In terms of rate of production, Murray and McGriff are somewhat similar, but Murray did it for 2000 extra plate appearances and was a slightly more valuable fielder. I actually have McGriff 15th now (I forgot he moved up when I switched from the GI to the Marker) among first basemen.

Lou Gehrig
Jimmie Foxx
Frank Thomas
Roger Connor
Rafael Palmeiro
Dan Brouthers
Eddie Murray
Johnny Mize
Jeff Bagwell
Willie McCovey
Mark McGwire
Harmon Killebrew
Dick Allen
Cap Anson
Fred McGriff

Sisler is 29th and Terry is 27th BTW.

And I still am not a big fan of McGriff making the HOF even at 15th given his total marker score being only 207.4...(a first baseman in the hall shouldn't be getting outscored by the middle class shortstops in the hall)...but at least I can say he's on the bubble.

Meh.

Im amazed not to see Will Clark who Bill James seems to think is a slam dunk hall of famer, something like in the 80's among all position players.

[SABR Matt]

Will Clark is two spots lower behind Keith Hernandez on this list...

And is clearly NOT a slam dunk hall of famer although he's in the bubble group.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I meant in terms of shape of career...he's like a blend between McCovey's weak tail (not good) and Murray's mediocre prime (also not good) while lacking either of their longevity (equally not good).

Oh I see. I misunderstood your statement.

[SABR Matt]

My fault...I didn't make it very clear.

[henrich]

Cepeda 11 spots ahead of Brouthers (and 10 ahead of McCovey) tells us all we need to know

I'm sorry I didn't see the facade of the ivory tower coming...I thought this was a place to share ideas, statistical data, and bounce opinions to see if they make sense. Your comment shows none of that, apparently while I'm willing to listen to your arguments, and adjust what I do, you must take that for weakness or a flawed system, whereas I see it as reflective, growing and looking to improve my own interpretations of my own data compared with other theories in this respected forum.

So Siddartha, why is Brouthers and McCovey ahead of Cepeda? I'm sure it's more than because I say so, with implied imagined friends that are alluded to here. I'm ready to reach enlightenment.

[jalbright]

All right, enough of the personal stuff, on both sides.

[henrich]

Sorry it seemed disrespectful. I could have handled it better.

[RuthMayBond]

I'm sorry I didn't see the facade of the ivory tower coming...I thought this was a place to share ideas, statistical data, and bounce opinions to see if they make sense. Your comment shows none of that, apparently while I'm willing to listen to your arguments, and adjust what I do, you must take that for weakness or a flawed system, whereas I see it as reflective, growing and looking to improve my own interpretations of my own data compared with other theories in this respected forum.

So Siddartha, why is Brouthers and McCovey ahead of Cepeda? I'm sure it's more than because I say so, with implied imagined friends that are alluded to here. I'm ready to reach enlightenment.When a guy gets docked for not being in playoffs that didn't exist ...

[henrich]

When a guy gets docked for not being in playoffs that didn't exist ...


I pass the shovel in our sandbox and you use it to throw sand in my eye?

To your point, I acknowledged Jim's excellent observation about the playoff systems and their respective eras- I will reiterate, I will correct in the summer of 2009, if not before. It's a good suggestion, and I think it will help shift the paradigm a bit.

[rsuriyop]

IMHO, McGriff should easily get in to the HOF. If someone like Eddie Murray can get in that easily, then why shouldn't McGriff? Murray was hardly that much better anyway and is normally ranked within the top 5 first basemen of all-time.

[STLCards2]

IMHO, McGriff should easily get in to the HOF. If someone like Eddie Murray can get in that easily, then why shouldn't McGriff? Murray was hardly that much better anyway and is normally ranked within the top 5 first basemen of all-time.

You might be right...at least on the surface, McGriff seems close enough to Murray that one guy shouldn't be seen as a top 5 IB guy and the other not HOFer. The perception gap seems awfuly large in comparison to the performance gap.

[SABR Matt]

I love how some people don't even bother reading what has been said in a thread...because if they did, they'd know that the statistical gap between Murray and McGriff is fairly significant as I've already demonstrated.

[brett]

You might be right...at least on the surface, McGriff seems close enough to Murray that one guy shouldn't be seen as a top 5 IB guy and the other not HOFer. The perception gap seems awfuly large in comparison to the performance gap.


Here's a comparison from top season on down.

[STLCards2]

I love how some people don't even bother reading what has been said in a thread...because if they did, they'd know that the statistical gap between Murray and McGriff is fairly significant as I've already demonstrated.

"but at least I can say he's on the bubble."

I am talking about the people who think Murray is an all-time great, but McGriff is not a credible candidate. Since you think he is "on the bubble", my post wasn't directed towards you.

I never said their production was close (Matt or Brett), I said it was "close enough" to make a case for McGriff. Apparantly you agree, since you both say he is a borderline cadidate.

The perception gap is larger (for many) than the production gap. I even said "on the surface" to signify that I am in faCt considering your deeper analysis. Yes, I have read every chart and graph on this thread. Would a 16% production decrease move Murray out of the HOF? I don't think so - but it might be close. Again -my debate was never that the numbers were close, but if they were "close enough."

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

I'm of the opinion that McGriff was a better hitter than Murray, but Murray has a huge longevity advantage, and is thus the more qualified HOF candidate. Regardless, they're both HOFers to me.

McGriff tends to get lumped together with the late 90s sluggers, which isn't fair to him. His prime was from 1988 through 1994, and his relative numbers during that period were very impressive. By the time of the offensive explosion, he was in his decline phase. If McGriff was born five years later, the direct comparisons to Bagwell and Frank Thomas would be more appropriate, but McGriff would probably also have well over 500 home runs.

[brett]

"but at least I can say he's on the bubble."

I am talking about the people who think Murray is an all-time great, but McGriff is not a credible candidate. Since you think he is "on the bubble", my post wasn't directed towards you.

I never said their production was close (Matt or Brett), I said it was "close enough" to make a case for McGriff. Apparantly you agree, since you both say he is a borderline cadidate.

The perception gap is larger (for many) than the production gap. I even said "on the surface" to signify that I am in faCt considering your deeper analysis. Yes, I have read every chart and graph on this thread. Would a 16% production decrease move Murray out of the HOF? I don't think so - but it might be close. Again -my debate was never that the numbers were close, but if they were "close enough."

I was just tossing out stats. Murray was actually considered by many to be a borderline candidate right up about until he got his 3000th hit. People considered that he just lasted a long time and never had a truly great season. 3000 hits does something magical for the HOF voters.

Just as a baseline, Murray posted a 129 OPS+ for 3026 games.

Since OPS+ happens to correlate rather linearly with a players true offensive production we can ask the following.

What if a player (first basemab) had a 16% lower OPS+ (about 108) for 3000 games? (What if Cal Ripken had played first base for his whole career?)

What if the player had a 129 OPS+ but only played about 2500 games?


Rusty Staub had a 124 OPS+ for almost 3000 games.

Tony Perez was 122 for about 2800

Darrell Evans was 119 for about 2700

Billy Williams was a little over 2500 games with a 133 OPS+, but was a pretty good outfielder rather than a first baseman.

Boggs was around 2400 games with a 130 OPS+.

If McGriff had been a career third baseman then, he might have been a better player than Boggs.

I would rather see McGriff in than Staub, Darrell Evans or Tony Perez, even though a lot of Saber arguments have been made for Evans and Perez.

Murray may be overrated. By the way, I remember that Wade Boggs had people talking down his hall of fame chances until he got to 3000 hits.

Was McGriff a comparable offensive player to Wade Boggs? What if Boggs had played first base for his whole career?

[STLCards2]

By the way, I remember that Wade Boggs had people talking down his hall of fame chances until he got to 3000 hits.

That was borderline absurdity. That stemmed froma complete lack of focus and understanding of two things, 1. positional adjustments and 2. the importants of walks.

Thankfully, I haven't heard any complaints about Boggs for a long time.

[SABR Matt]

Again...nice graphic Brett. :D

STLCards...I wasn't necessarily barking at you with my comments about people not reading the preceding posts...I was barking at the guy who posted before you who came in with a two-liner about McGriff being the same as Murray.

I don't think you and I disagree...Murray was a clearly superior player to McGriff but there's a lot of room between how good Murray was and the bottom of the hall for first basemen. McGriff is at the bottom of where I'd put my bubble probably...I might go as low as Keith Hernandez or Will Clark but not any lower.

With the Mariners funding a new department in sabermetrics, I am now seriously considering scrambling to produce some kind of document pitching some of my methods and my research background to send to them...which would imply that I need to get cracking on producing something publication worthy. LOL (I bring that up for brett's benefit)

[SABR Matt]

As for Boggs being similar to McGriff or even Murray:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1987 AL 15.52 1.34 26.8 0.9 16.86
1986 AL 14.35 1.37 24.3 0.9 15.72
1983 AL 13.90 1.70 23.5 1.6 15.60
1985 AL 12.59 2.36 20.4 2.8 14.95
1988 AL 12.37 2.08 20.2 2.3 14.45
1989 AL 10.06 2.44 15.4 3.1 12.50
1984 AL 7.75 3.03 10.9 4.2 10.78
1991 AL 7.75 1.90 11.4 2.2 9.65
1990 AL 7.20 0.75 9.9 -0.3 7.95
1994 AL 6.39 0.81 10.0 0.5 7.20
1993 AL 4.97 2.13 5.9 2.7 7.10
1982 AL 4.67 2.04 6.9 3.0 6.71
1995 AL 5.13 1.52 6.8 1.7 6.65
1992 AL 3.52 1.39 3.3 1.5 4.91
1996 AL 3.70 0.91 3.8 0.4 4.61
1997 AL 3.41 0.63 4.2 0.4 4.04
1998 AL 1.52 1.14 0.0 1.5 2.66
1999 AL 1.69 0.48 1.3 0.3 2.18

Boggs had a MARKEDLY better peak than either of the other two. Partially because he was good defensively early in his career but his best seasons were largely absent of good defense. LOL

Boggs had a weaker tail than some of the first basemen we've talk about tonight, by the peak values offset that and then some. He was clearly the superior player even ignorant of position.

[Fuzzy Bear]

McGriff is at least as good as Cepeda in about every aspect.

McGriff had a career Offensive Winning Percentage of .662; Cepeda was at .653. Furthermore, McGriff was able to play 1B to the end; Cepeda was a DH with bad knees. His career as a full-timer in the field was over at age 33. Furthermore, Cepeda posted .700-plus OWPs in four seasons; McGriff did it in five.

Cepeda was perceived as a bigger star while active than was McGriff, but it's hard to see why McGriff should be outside the Hall if Cepeda is in, and vice versa. It also begs the question of why Norm Cash and Will Clark are not in the HOF if Cepeda is in. Those who argue against McGriff need to address the issue of whether or not Cepeda's selection was a mistake.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

McGriff had a career Offensive Winning Percentage of .662; Cepeda was at .653. Furthermore, McGriff was able to play 1B to the end; Cepeda was a DH with bad knees. His career as a full-timer in the field was over at age 33. Furthermore, Cepeda posted .700-plus OWPs in four seasons; McGriff did it in five.

Cepeda was perceived as a bigger star while active than was McGriff, but it's hard to see why McGriff should be outside the Hall if Cepeda is in, and vice versa. It also begs the question of why Norm Cash and Will Clark are not in the HOF if Cepeda is in. Those who argue against McGriff need to address the issue of whether or not Cepeda's selection was a mistake.

Out of interest, where does Tony Perez fit into the mix in your opinion? Aside from being a key player on a "dynasty" type team, I don't think he has a particularly strong HOF resume. I personally don't think he belongs in the HOF, but I also don't think his selection was a major injustice or anything like that. Regardless, because I don't think he belongs, I can't use him as leverage for McGriff's candidacy. I can however use Cepeda. I draw the line for a HOF first baseman somewhere between Perez and Cepeda, closer to Cepeda. McGriff's slightly ahead of Cepeda in my opinion, making him a lower-tier HOFer.

[SABR Matt]

I wouldn't put Perez in the HOF...I don't think he was even the fourth most important part of the dynasty team he supposedly led and I don't see a lot of evidence that he's a hall-worthy player just on merit.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I'm of the opinion that McGriff was a better hitter than Murray, but Murray has a huge longevity advantage, and is thus the more qualified HOF candidate. Regardless, they're both HOFers to me.

McGriff tends to get lumped together with the late 90s sluggers, which isn't fair to him. His prime was from 1988 through 1994, and his relative numbers during that period were very impressive. By the time of the offensive explosion, he was in his decline phase. If McGriff was born five years later, the direct comparisons to Bagwell and Frank Thomas would be more appropriate, but McGriff would probably also have well over 500 home runs.

People tend to forget that McGriff was considered the best first basemen for about three seasons.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

McGriff had a career Offensive Winning Percentage of .662; Cepeda was at .653. Furthermore, McGriff was able to play 1B to the end; Cepeda was a DH with bad knees. His career as a full-timer in the field was over at age 33. Furthermore, Cepeda posted .700-plus OWPs in four seasons; McGriff did it in five.

Cepeda was perceived as a bigger star while active than was McGriff, but it's hard to see why McGriff should be outside the Hall if Cepeda is in, and vice versa. It also begs the question of why Norm Cash and Will Clark are not in the HOF if Cepeda is in. Those who argue against McGriff need to address the issue of whether or not Cepeda's selection was a mistake.
Will Clark's problem was a matter of perception. He came up in 1986 in a more pitching dominated league. He hit 35 HRs in 1987, then 29 more in 1988. His 1989 season was incredible, MVP worthy for sure. From 1987-89 his OPS+ was 152, 160, and 175 respectively. At the end of the 1989 Clark season was just 25 years old. At that time it looked like 1989 was the start of a great 7-8 run for Clark. But that run never happened. He fell back a bit in 1990 (125 OPS+) but had two outstanding seasons in 1991-92 (154, 150 OPS+, respectively). But starting in 1993, when offense took off in the NL Clark faded. His elbow injuries where probable the main reason for that. When "HR Ball" arrived Clark couldn't stay healthy. After 1992 he cleared 20 HRs just twice (23 HR in 1998, 21 HRs in 2000). Clark just got completely buried under Thomas, Bagwell, McGwire, Palmeiro, Helton, Delgado, etc. As a Giants fan I just loved Will Clark. I know modern sabermetric shows him to be greatly underrated. But I can't support his HoF candidacy. There were just too many great contemporary first baseman and when offense was going crazy in the mid 1990s Clark didn't join the party.

[brett]

Out of interest, where does Tony Perez fit into the mix in your opinion? Aside from being a key player on a "dynasty" type team, I don't think he has a particularly strong HOF resume. I personally don't think he belongs in the HOF, but I also don't think his selection was a major injustice or anything like that. Regardless, because I don't think he belongs, I can't use him as leverage for McGriff's candidacy. I can however use Cepeda. I draw the line for a HOF first baseman somewhere between Perez and Cepeda, closer to Cepeda. McGriff's slightly ahead of Cepeda in my opinion, making him a lower-tier HOFer.

I had a real problem with Don Sutton and Tony Perez when they went in, but have gradually changed my view. Perez moved up in my view primarily because he turns out to have been a pretty good fielding third baseman for 5 years from '67-'71. I still have a problem with him being in, but it is somewhat mitigated. Baseball Prospectus has him as a legit gold glove contender at third in '68, '69 and '71 and he moved largely because of his team's makeup.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I wouldn't put Perez in the HOF...I don't think he was even the fourth most important part of the dynasty team he supposedly led and I don't see a lot of evidence that he's a hall-worthy player just on merit.

Don't you know that because Joe Morgan says Tony Perez was the leader of the Big Red Machine then it must be true? Sheesh, Matt.


;)

[SABR Matt]

Tony Perez by the numbers:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1970 NL 9.51 2.16 14.7 2.4 11.67
1973 NL 10.12 1.19 16.1 1.0 11.31
1968 NL 6.86 3.40 9.3 4.8 10.26
1969 NL 8.05 1.58 11.6 1.2 9.63
1971 NL 6.67 2.90 9.1 4.0 9.57
1972 NL 7.55 1.52 11.5 1.8 9.07
1978 NL 6.46 2.25 9.2 3.2 8.71
1967 NL 6.54 1.77 9.0 1.7 8.31
1977 NL 5.27 2.42 6.5 3.4 7.69
1974 NL 5.56 1.89 6.9 2.4 7.45
1975 NL 4.91 1.77 6.2 2.3 6.68
1976 NL 4.33 2.08 5.0 2.9 6.41
1979 NL 3.62 1.62 3.8 2.0 5.24
1980 AL 3.56 1.01 3.1 0.7 4.57
1985 NL 2.61 0.12 3.9 -0.2 2.73
1965 NL 2.02 0.45 2.1 0.2 2.47
1981 AL 1.58 0.70 1.0 0.9 2.28
1983 NL 1.45 0.45 1.1 0.4 1.90
1986 NL 1.12 0.10 0.8 -0.2 1.22
1966 NL 0.66 0.54 -0.4 0.4 1.20
1982 AL 1.02 0.00 0.7 0.0 1.02

a) EXTREMELY weak tail region of the career.
b) Peak pretty blase by HOF standards
c) I don't see this legit gold glove third baseman thing...BP metrics are not worth the time of day. Not that PCA is perfect but I'm more inclined to believe he was a "good" third baseman on average than that he was a gold glover.
d) Once he moved over to first he made for a an average-solid fielder there, but not a great one.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'm of the opinion that McGriff was a better hitter than Murray, but Murray has a huge longevity advantage, and is thus the more qualified HOF candidate. Regardless, they're both HOFers to me.

McGriff tends to get lumped together with the late 90s sluggers, which isn't fair to him. His prime was from 1988 through 1994, and his relative numbers during that period were very impressive. By the time of the offensive explosion, he was in his decline phase. If McGriff was born five years later, the direct comparisons to Bagwell and Frank Thomas would be more appropriate, but McGriff would probably also have well over 500 home runs.

McGriff would have made it to 500 HRs if the Blue Jays had installed him as a regular early on in 1987, instead of letting Willie Upshaw eat valuable ABs. McGriff racked up 20 jacks in 1987 in under 300 ABs; I'm sure he'd have made it to 500 if he'd have been made the regular 1Bman from day one of the 1987 season. (1987 was a good HR season as well, so that would have helped McGriff even more.)

[Fuzzy Bear]

I had a real problem with Don Sutton and Tony Perez when they went in, but have gradually changed my view. Perez moved up in my view primarily because he turns out to have been a pretty good fielding third baseman for 5 years from '67-'71. I still have a problem with him being in, but it is somewhat mitigated. Baseball Prospectus has him as a legit gold glove contender at third in '68, '69 and '71 and he moved largely because of his team's makeup.

There would be no defensible reason for keeping Sutton, a 325-game winner, out of the HOF. One looks silly trying to make such reasons up.

Perez is borderline. I'm OK with him being there, but I'd be OK with him not being there.

[SABR Matt]

How about you look at something other than wins to determine a player's HOF worthiness.

Here's Sutton's career by DNRA, for example:
1966 NL LAN 672 117 6.35
1967 NL LAN 696 102 3.20
1968 NL LAN 613 108 3.54
1969 NL LAN 870 98 3.08
1970 NL LAN 777 90 0.97
1971 NL LAN 773 122 8.10
1972 NL LAN 810 149 14.79
1973 NL LAN 759 137 11.78
1974 NL LAN 826 107 5.23
1975 NL LAN 738 107 4.74
1976 NL LAN 787 104 4.28
1977 NL LAN 706 111 5.65
1978 NL LAN 710 93 1.52
1979 NL LAN 681 122 7.69
1980 NL LAN 630 129 8.08
1981 NL HOU 463 127 5.51
1982 AL ML4 162 103 0.89
1982 NL HOU 585 119 5.84
1983 AL ML4 657 105 4.02
1984 AL ML4 647 100 2.86
1985 AL CAL 93 104 0.56
1985 AL OAK 587 108 4.28
1986 AL CAL 609 102 3.16
1987 AL CAL 564 96 1.83
1988 NL LAN 261 81 -0.35

That marker score totals up to 117.6 (16th among pitchers from 1957-2005) which is a pretty solid case for HOF inclusion...and I didn't even need to rely on silly crutches like "but he had 300 winz!!!"

His career DNRA+ was 109, which is a little low but he had longevity on his side.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

I had a real problem with Don Sutton and Tony Perez when they went in, but have gradually changed my view. Perez moved up in my view primarily because he turns out to have been a pretty good fielding third baseman for 5 years from '67-'71. I still have a problem with him being in, but it is somewhat mitigated. Baseball Prospectus has him as a legit gold glove contender at third in '68, '69 and '71 and he moved largely because of his team's makeup.

Don Sutton is the Eddie Murray of pitchers - never dominant, but consistently good, and durable enough to slowly rack up counting numbers that compare to those of the all-time greats. I fully support players like that for the HOF. Perez was that type of player (never dominant, but consistently good), but without the longevity, and thus without the great counting numbers. A 122 OPS+ from a power-hitting first baseman who didn't make it to 400 homers just doesn't cut it for me. If I had a vote, he wouldn't get it. Like Fuzzy Bear, I'm okay with him being in, but I'd be okay with him not being in too.

[Mike90]

Don Sutton is the Eddie Murray of pitchers - never dominant, but consistently good, and durable enough to slowly rack up counting numbers that compare to those of the all-time greats. I fully support players like that for the HOF. Perez was that type of player (never dominant, but consistently good), but without the longevity, and thus without the great counting numbers. A 122 OPS+ from a power-hitting first baseman who didn't make it to 400 homers just doesn't cut it for me. If I had a vote, he wouldn't get it. Like Fuzzy Bear, I'm okay with him being in, but I'd be okay with him not being in too.

I get the feeling that fans and media forget Murray was a dominant player at his peak. From 1978 to 1985, Murray had consecutive MVP finishes of 8th, 11th, 6th, 5th, 2nd, 2nd, 4th and 5th, and then he finished 5th again in 1990. He had 4 consecutive seasons with an OPS+ of exactly 156 (which is kind of bizarre) with a high of 158. Maybe that doesn't quite meet the common standard of dominance, but it's definitely above Sutton whose only great season was 1972.

BTW, I think both Sutton and Murray are deserving and that Perez is kind of a meh pick that I could go either way about.

[STLCards2]

A 122 OPS+ from a power-hitting first baseman who didn't make it to 400 homers just doesn't cut it for me. If I had a vote, he wouldn't get it. .

What might squeek him in for me is his near 800 (1/4 of his career) games as a pretty solid 3rd baseman. If he was only a 1B, I would probably leave him out.

[SABR Matt]

8 years of being an average third baseman isn't going to change his value that much compared to if he'd used that time as a good first baseman instead.

[Cougar]

McGriff would have made it to 500 HRs if the Blue Jays had installed him as a regular early on in 1987, instead of letting Willie Upshaw eat valuable ABs. McGriff racked up 20 jacks in 1987 in under 300 ABs; I'm sure he'd have made it to 500 if he'd have been made the regular 1Bman from day one of the 1987 season. (1987 was a good HR season as well, so that would have helped McGriff even more.)

Not to mention that the 1994 strike cut short what certainly would have been his best HR season. He was cruising towards 40-plus home runs when the music stopped.

[Cougar]

How about you look at something other than wins to determine a player's HOF worthiness.

Here's Sutton's career by DNRA, for example:
1966 NL LAN 672 117 6.35
1967 NL LAN 696 102 3.20
1968 NL LAN 613 108 3.54
1969 NL LAN 870 98 3.08
1970 NL LAN 777 90 0.97
1971 NL LAN 773 122 8.10
1972 NL LAN 810 149 14.79
1973 NL LAN 759 137 11.78
1974 NL LAN 826 107 5.23
1975 NL LAN 738 107 4.74
1976 NL LAN 787 104 4.28
1977 NL LAN 706 111 5.65
1978 NL LAN 710 93 1.52
1979 NL LAN 681 122 7.69
1980 NL LAN 630 129 8.08
1981 NL HOU 463 127 5.51
1982 AL ML4 162 103 0.89
1982 NL HOU 585 119 5.84
1983 AL ML4 657 105 4.02
1984 AL ML4 647 100 2.86
1985 AL CAL 93 104 0.56
1985 AL OAK 587 108 4.28
1986 AL CAL 609 102 3.16
1987 AL CAL 564 96 1.83
1988 NL LAN 261 81 -0.35

That marker score totals up to 117.6 (16th among pitchers from 1957-2005) which is a pretty solid case for HOF inclusion...and I didn't even need to rely on silly crutches like "but he had 300 winz!!!"

His career DNRA+ was 109, which is a little low but he had longevity on his side.

That's a pretty snarky way to talk to someone that you're agreeing with.

Further, you're missing the obvious lesson here -- that past a certain point, wins are an awfully reliable heuristic. And that point is probably right around 300 wins. It didn't get the magic number status just for being round.

[SABR Matt]

Just because good pitchers tend to hang around long enough to rack up wins doesn't mean we should turn off our brains and stop thinking when someone hits a benchmark.

[STLCards2]

8 years of being an average third baseman isn't going to change his value that much compared to if he'd used that time as a good first baseman instead.

Correct - but being a mediocre third baseman for 8 years and a mediocre first baseman for 14 years is better than being a mediocre firstbaseman for 22 years - which is how he is remembered by most fans.

[Cougar]

No, but talking in shorthand isn't the same thing as turning off one's brain.

[SABR Matt]

It is when you talk as definitively as the guy I was responding to did.

I responded negatively to his "the guy had 325 wins and there are no excuses for keeping him out...you're just making stuff up" attitude.

[Cougar]

Well, you should give people the benefit of the doubt. Fuzzy's a very thoughtful poster.

[brett]

I wouldn't put Perez in the HOF...I don't think he was even the fourth most important part of the dynasty team he supposedly led and I don't see a lot of evidence that he's a hall-worthy player just on merit.

I'm interested in where you put Tim Raines. A year ago, I wasn't sure he was a hall of famer. Now I feel that having him left off is the worst omission and virtually invalidates that hall of fame. I think he might be a top 60 player. I also think that his best 5 consecutive years may be better than Henderson's (though Henderson did have 2 good years in centerfield and his defense might make up ground).

However many feel he is a bubble candidate.

Who are the top 5 guys who have not been elected, but have been eligible for at least 1 year.

[SABR Matt]

Raines is definitely a hall of famer. The problem with Raines in the minds of voters is that he was a jack of all trades and master of none. He could hiit a little bit (.280s)...hit for power a little bit (15-25 HR power), run a little bit (50 SB seasons in there...but not like Rickey), field a little bit (underrated in this respect)...but he was not seen as having a dominant skillset...and voters still don't have enouhg respect for walks, which was actually his best skill.

I'll post some numerical charts later today when I'm back at my home computer, but for now, just be aware that some of Raines' best seasons compare very favorably to other similar players (like Henderson).

The top five guys that are not in the hall that should be IMHO are:

1) Raines
2) Santo
3) Allen
4) Blyleven
5) and here's where it starts to get murky...but I'd probably go with McGwire here (and I know that's not too popular around here given the steroid issue).

[RuthMayBond]

There would be no defensible reason for keeping Sutton, a 325-game winner, out of the HOF. One looks silly trying to make such reasons up.
Sutton had a grand total of three seasons with an ERA+ > 127

[Paul Wendt]

I'm interested in where you put Tim Raines. A year ago, I wasn't sure he was a hall of famer. Now I feel that having him left off is the worst omission and virtually invalidates that hall of fame.
This suggests to me, first, that you are a young student of the game, even if you do remember your own surprise that baseball might put a team in Toronto (around 1960) or Montreal (several years later). Second, you suffered some life trauma this year, for that is quite a swing in opinion.

Indeed, if I read correctly between the lines, you would have voted against him yourself "a year ago". But his only election was fully 11 months ago! Evidently it "virtually invalidates that hall of fame" that a majority of its delegated voters shared your opinion and voted your way, within a month.

Deacon White is not in that Hall of Fame, 140 years after he pursued the ballplayer occupation by moving to the big city (Elmira NY to Cleveland OH), 120 years after his last good season on the ballfield (just upstream in Detroit).

There is nothing to get my dander up in Tim Raines, Senior, losing one election.

[Paul Wendt]

Who are the top 5 guys who have not been elected, but have been eligible for at least 1 year.
To give an example that includes Tim Raines Sr., there may be a good argument for
: White, Hines, Dahlen, Blyleven and Raines.

But if I take it literally then there is a good argument for
: White, Hines, Dahlen, Joe Jackson and Rose.

Recognizing that the delegated "first voters" have not yet done their part by rejecting Blyleven and Raines Sr., and recognizing that Jackson and Rose have not been considered as "top guys" in the relevant way, I think that a good although not literal answer to the question is
: White, Hines, Dahlen, Santo, and Grich.

[Mike90]

To give an example that includes Tim Raines Sr., there may be a good argument for
: White, Hines, Dahlen, Blyleven and Raines.

But if I take it literally then there is a good argument for
: White, Hines, Dahlen, Joe Jackson and Rose.

Um, Joe Jackson and Pete Rose have not been eligible for one year, which was part of Brett's question.

[brett]

This suggests to me, first, that you are a young student of the game, even if you do remember your own surprise that baseball might put a team in Toronto (around 1960) or Montreal (several years later). Second, you suffered some life trauma this year, for that is quite a swing in opinion.

Indeed, if I read correctly between the lines, you would have voted against him yourself "a year ago". But his only election was fully 11 months ago! Evidently it "virtually invalidates that hall of fame" that a majority of its delegated voters shared your opinion and voted your way, within a month.

Deacon White is not in that Hall of Fame, 140 years after he pursued the ballplayer occupation by moving to the big city (Elmira NY to Cleveland OH), 120 years after his last good season on the ballfield (just upstream in Detroit).

There is nothing to get my dander up in Tim Raines, Senior, losing one election.

I would certainly vote for him now, but when he was playing, even in say '81-'87, I did not perceive of him as a future hall of famer, and he didn't quite last long enough to hit the big milestones. I didn't even remember that I didn't support him about a year ago, but I found a poll on this site where I voted against him and it was 12-14 months ago. It was kind of like looking in a mirror and seeing someone else.

I am more afraid that the baseball writers probably see him much the way that I did. I have heard some writers state absolutely ridiculous arguments against players. One that he would never vote for an outfielder who didn't hit .300 except for Mickey Mantle.

[brett]

I would put Dahlen in. In win shares evaluations he is the highest player not in, and right in company with the top 30-40 slam dunk hall of famers.

I know that Matt is not big on too many 19th century guys.

I would go
Raines
Santo
Allen
Blylevin
Dahlen

Those 5 would go into my hall. Raines, Santo, Allen and Dahlen are in my top 100 position players, and Blylevin is in my top 50 pitchers so they would get into even my smallest hall.

White is a legitimate choice, but obviously a complicated one. He played only 1500 games, but in shorter seasons. He caught several hundred at least. He hit well but probably ran poorly in a time when that was very important.

[Mike90]

Sutton had a grand total of three seasons with an ERA+ > 127

Sutton's 5 best ERA+ figures: 161, 160, 144, 127, 126

Sutton had a total of 2 seasons with an ERA+ > 159 while Blyleven had a grand total of none. I love using arbitrary numbers to decide who belongs in the Hall!

[RuthMayBond]

Sutton's 5 best ERA+ figures: 161, 160, 144, 127, 126

Sutton had a total of 2 seasons with an ERA+ > 159 while Blyleven had a grand total of none. I love using arbitrary numbers to decide who belongs in the Hall!I'm saying that 127 is not even that high and he could only surpass it 3x, 159 is very high

[Paul Wendt]

Um, Joe Jackson and Pete Rose have not been eligible for one year, which was part of Brett's question.

Jackson yes, Rose no, but you are right that that was not taking the question literally.

correction
But if I take it literally then there is a good argument for
: White, Hines, Dahlen, Grant Johnson and Joe Jackson.

Ross Barnes is another alternative but he has been ineligible (as a player) for more than fifty years, whereas Johnson was eligible 2005-2006. Furthermore I am listing these quintets chronologically, so Barnes would disrupt the early part of the listing, just before or just after White.

[Paul Wendt]

With the Mariners funding a new department in sabermetrics, I am now seriously considering scrambling to produce some kind of document pitching some of my methods and my research background to send to them...which would imply that I need to get cracking on producing something publication worthy. LOL (I bring that up for brett's benefit)
Even if Seattle is the relocation of your dreams, my advice is finish the meteorology.

In the meantime do some research on whom those ballclubs funding sabrmetric work have "hired" (as employees or contractors) and based on what resumes.

Although you scoff at BaseballProspectus --especially, iiuc, the sabrmetric work incorporated in MLB player DT cards-- keep in mind that Clay Davenport is a meteorologist. Some people know that, others can be reminded or informed.

IIRC Davenport earned his status as one of the leading baseball statistical analysts partly for one article on Coors Field, or one article in multiple versions for different audiences. See internet archives, including newsgroup rec.sport.baseball if possible, more than ten years ago (maybe Denver rather than Coors). Search for Davenport, Colorado, baseball, altitude, meteorol*, NOAA.

Here is one google hit from June 1996, about
U Virginia meteorologist Davenport on baseball at Colorado altitude (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_/ai_18354531)

[SABR Matt]

I would put Dahlen in. In win shares evaluations he is the highest player not in, and right in company with the top 30-40 slam dunk hall of famers.

I know that Matt is not big on too many 19th century guys.

I would go
Raines
Santo
Allen
Blylevin
Dahlen

Those 5 would go into my hall. Raines, Santo, Allen and Dahlen are in my top 100 position players, and Blylevin is in my top 50 pitchers so they would get into even my smallest hall.

White is a legitimate choice, but obviously a complicated one. He played only 1500 games, but in shorter seasons. He caught several hundred at least. He hit well but probably ran poorly in a time when that was very important.

Deacon White has no place in the HOF...nor does Hines. I don't know where your bizarre certainty on this comes from Paul...unless you think it is an amazing demonstration of baseball skill to be one of the earliest "stars" of a game that was not yet actually major league quality baseball.

I did go completely blank on both Grich and Dahlen though...both of whom deserve enshrinement more than McGwire does.

As for the comments about meteorology and Clay Davenport...his early study of Coors Field is certainty a worthwhile study...but my intended study of weather variables in baseball will be much more extensive and inclusive (see comments in threads dedicated to the Fiato/Souders Matrix). And one good article does not a good sabermetrician make as Davenport's childishly simple metrics reveal. And I think you misunderstood my goal in pursuing an internship within the game. I had no intention of quitting my Ph.D. program...the goal was to get research funding and work both in parallel, which I believe to be entirely possible.

[SABR Matt]

Now...a little more in the way of a numerical summary on Tim Raines:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1985 NL 13.51 2.29 22.8 2.9 15.80
1987 NL 12.33 3.02 20.7 4.4 15.35
1986 NL 12.64 1.62 21.1 1.5 14.26
1984 NL 12.12 2.10 19.7 1.5 14.22
1992 AL 9.48 3.08 14.9 4.6 12.56
1983 NL 10.46 2.06 16.4 2.3 12.52
1989 NL 8.04 1.32 12.2 1.0 9.36
1982 NL 7.08 1.90 9.5 1.6 8.98
1991 AL 5.99 2.43 7.5 3.2 8.42
1993 AL 6.16 2.03 9.2 2.9 8.19
1981 NL 7.24 0.67 12.2 0.4 7.91
1988 NL 5.44 1.92 7.8 2.5 7.36
1990 NL 5.77 1.22 8.1 1.0 6.99
1995 AL 4.58 1.03 5.5 0.9 5.61
1994 AL 2.77 1.94 2.7 2.8 4.71
1997 AL 3.97 0.22 5.9 -0.1 4.19
1998 AL 3.17 0.56 3.9 0.8 3.73
1996 AL 2.57 -0.04 3.6 -0.6 2.53
2001 NL 1.37 0.26 2.1 0.4 1.63

Compare him to some of the other players I've supported for HOF induction and you'll see he is very favorably similar in terms of his seasonal win count distribution. Fairly bulky tail, strong 5-year peak, and early in his career, very good defensively. He's no Rickey Henderson, but he's a darned good player.

Here, BTW are some cards for guys I've been spouting on and on about as HOF snubs, starting with Dick Allen:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1972 AL 15.27 2.05 26.7 2.8 17.32
1966 NL 13.61 3.07 23.4 4.7 16.68
1964 NL 13.08 2.60 21.7 3.3 15.68
1967 NL 10.87 1.09 18.3 0.7 11.96
1968 NL 10.62 0.89 17.4 0.2 11.51
1965 NL 10.19 1.12 15.9 0.3 11.31
1971 NL 8.66 1.40 13.2 1.3 10.06
1974 AL 8.95 0.78 14.6 0.5 9.73
1969 NL 9.28 -0.05 15.4 -1.2 9.23
1973 AL 7.59 1.09 13.4 1.6 8.68
1970 NL 7.38 0.79 11.4 0.4 8.17
1976 NL 3.31 0.35 4.5 -0.1 3.66
1975 NL 2.42 0.57 1.8 0.1 2.99
1977 AL 0.73 0.39 0.2 0.3 1.12

Nice bulky sub-peak mid-career ELP (established level of production), good 3-year score, but tail completely missing leaves him in the 70s all time amongst position players.

Ron Santo:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1967 NL 11.59 4.45 18.8 6.9 16.04
1964 NL 11.17 3.16 18.0 4.4 14.33
1965 NL 9.91 3.54 15.4 5.1 13.45
1966 NL 10.87 2.26 17.5 2.6 13.13
1968 NL 7.61 3.86 10.9 5.7 11.47
1969 NL 8.29 2.19 12.2 2.4 10.48
1963 NL 7.02 3.01 9.7 4.0 10.03
1972 NL 6.70 2.91 9.9 4.2 9.61
1970 NL 5.58 3.52 7.0 5.2 9.10
1971 NL 5.00 1.71 5.9 1.5 6.71
1961 NL 5.16 1.27 6.2 0.7 6.43
1973 NL 4.53 0.66 5.2 -0.4 5.19
1962 NL 1.85 3.32 -0.6 4.7 5.17
1960 NL 2.55 0.22 2.7 -0.6 2.77

Again...solid ELP and a good peak with essentially no tail...Santo finds himself in the 80s all time (a little shorter than Allen on lower-half-of-career production. SPECTACULARLY underrated fielder.

Bobby Grich:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1975 AL 7.95 6.77 11.8 10.7 14.72
1974 AL 8.58 5.38 12.7 7.7 13.96
1973 AL 5.81 7.26 7.2 11.4 13.07
1976 AL 8.79 3.65 13.7 4.6 12.44
1979 AL 9.18 1.67 14.5 0.5 10.85
1981 AL 6.94 3.2 11.3 4.4 10.14
1982 AL 5.79 3.86 7.8 5.0 9.65
1983 AL 7.88 1.74 12.7 1.3 9.62
1972 AL 6.11 3.33 8.9 4.5 9.44
1978 AL 4.69 3.63 5.6 4.5 8.32
1985 AL 3.03 4.02 2.4 5.9 7.05
1980 AL 5.48 1.46 7.2 0.1 6.94
1984 AL 4.75 1.86 6.8 2.0 6.61
1986 AL 2.86 1.11 3.4 0.7 3.97
1977 AL 1.75 0.73 2.1 0.5 2.48

Underappreciated due to lack of understanding of his defensive greatness. Spectacular defensive peak overcomes fairly uninspiring offensive peak. Nonetheless a solid hitter as well, unlike Mazeroski and other glove-first second basemen. No tail at all, but very high ELP sustained for a surprisingly long time.

Bill Dahlen:
Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
NL 8.72 3.67 13.8 5.0 12.39
NL 7.33 4.27 10.8 6.0 11.60
NL 5.63 4.51 7.6 6.3 10.14
NL 7.62 2.28 11.2 2.2 9.90
NL 7.41 2.27 11.1 2.4 9.68
NL 6.13 2.71 8.5 2.9 8.84
NL 5.08 3.64 6.4 4.5 8.72
NL 5.68 2.82 8.1 3.3 8.50
NL 5.24 3.15 6.5 4.4 8.39
NL 5.68 2.14 7.9 2.1 7.82
NL 3.56 3.89 3.5 5.3 7.45
NL 4.23 3.19 4.9 3.9 7.42
NL 3.35 3.67 3.0 4.7 7.02
NL 3.48 3.38 3.5 4.4 6.86
NL 4.52 1.91 5.5 1.2 6.43
NL 2.58 3.29 1.4 4.2 5.87
NL 4.26 1.60 6.4 1.7 5.86
NL 1.13 3.02 -1.1 3.4 4.15
NL 1.23 0.75 1.0 0.4 1.98

Brutally consistent defensively..year in year out bankable win production unlike many of even the best fielders who fluctuate from year to year. Bottom-half-of-career is very robust and makes up for a limited peak.

Sherry Magee:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1910 NL 17.81 1.04 31.5 0.3 18.85
1907 NL 11.41 3.55 19.2 5.4 14.96
1905 NL 9.71 3.84 15.2 5.8 13.55
1906 NL 9.43 2.79 14.9 3.7 12.22
1914 NL 10.10 1.40 16.3 0.8 11.50
1915 NL 7.64 2.89 11.1 3.2 10.53
1908 NL 7.96 2.45 12.2 3.2 10.41
1911 NL 6.07 2.12 8.9 2.7 8.19
1912 NL 6.89 0.95 10.3 0.4 7.84
1913 NL 6.75 1.01 10.1 0.5 7.76
1909 NL 5.93 1.68 8.0 1.6 7.61
1918 NL 6.34 0.71 9.8 0.3 7.05
1917 NL 4.82 1.23 6.9 1.4 6.05
1916 NL 4.98 0.33 6.9 -1.0 5.31
1904 NL 3.66 1.05 4.9 0.9 4.71
1919 NL 1.08 0.53 0.9 0.6 1.61

Exceedingly high ELP for someone most people don't talk about...should probably put him in my top-5 snub list and bump either Santo or Allen...they're very close to each other in the ratings and Santo may trail statistically but has a better good will rep. in the game...something I'll leave up the fans here to decide. Magee has them both beat though, finishing in the 60s all time.

Harry Stovey:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1888 AA 12.75 2.29 21.7 3.0 15.04
1889 AA 11.22 3.39 18.4 5.1 14.61
1891 NL 8.84 3.61 13.7 5.4 12.45
1886 AA 9.75 1.65 16.0 1.5 11.40
1883 AA 9.83 1.14 16.8 1.4 10.95
1890 PL 8.59 1.83 13.6 2.1 10.42
1885 AA 8.93 1.25 14.5 1.1 10.18
1884 AA 7.69 1.23 12.4 1.4 8.92
1887 AA 5.79 1.96 8.0 2.2 7.75
1880 NL 5.97 1.21 9.6 1.2 7.09
1892 NL 4.39 1.58 5.7 1.8 5.97
1882 NL 3.92 0.56 5.4 0.1 4.48
1881 NL 3.36 0.81 4.5 0.9 4.17
1893 NL 2.77 0.71 4.0 0.5 3.48

Every one of these guys has a better resume than this guy Deacon White...come on now:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1884 NL 6.48 0.84 9.9 0.4 7.32
1877 NL 6.5 0.62 11.3 0.7 7.12
1888 NL 5.7 1.31 7.9 1.1 7.01
1879 NL 5.07 1.00 8.0 1.1 6.07
1887 NL 3.87 1.11 4.7 0.9 4.98
1881 NL 3.57 0.78 5.1 0.6 4.35
1876 NL 2.66 1.21 3.4 1.6 4.32
1886 NL 2.94 1.27 2.6 1.0 4.21
1878 NL 2.79 0.72 3.9 0.8 3.51
1883 NL 3.02 0.45 3.4 -0.4 3.47
1885 NL 2.62 0.79 2.6 0.4 3.41
1890 PL 2.06 1.25 0.8 1.1 3.20
1882 NL 2.28 0.39 2.3 -0.3 2.67
1880 NL 1.31 0.22 1.7 0.0 1.53
1889 NL 0.92 0.19 0.3 -0.3 1.11

He wasn't even a good fielder...even if you start making absurd assumptions like the one where you assume he'd hit the same if he had to play 162 game seasons and therefore you can extrapolate out each season's numbers, he comes up short of most of the guys I just listed. And that assumption is indefensible, especially for a guy who caught some games. Never mind the league quality problems.

Oh heck...one more to remind us of what a hall of famer looks like...Reggie Smith:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1977 NL 11.92 1.51 20.0 1.3 13.43
1978 NL 9.35 2.22 15.3 2.9 11.57
1971 AL 8.72 2.59 13.0 2.6 11.31
1974 NL 8.13 2.77 12.5 3.8 10.90
1973 AL 7.41 3.34 11.7 4.9 10.75
1968 AL 7.36 2.87 10.7 3.1 10.23
1970 AL 6.30 3.67 8.6 4.9 9.97
1972 AL 8.16 0.48 12.9 -0.9 8.64
1969 AL 6.48 1.83 9.1 1.2 8.31
1980 NL 5.78 2.51 9.3 4.0 8.29
1975 NL 6.27 1.77 9.0 2.2 8.04
1967 AL 4.07 3.00 4.2 3.2 7.07
1976 NL 3.45 2.44 4.2 3.7 5.89
1982 NL 5.03 0.67 7.6 0.5 5.70
1979 NL 2.80 1.88 3.9 2.9 4.68

Now THAT"S a hall of famer. Finishes in the 80s along with some of the others I listed due to a lack of an overwhelming peak, but that gorgeous ELP curve is worth a heck of a lot more than Deacon White ever dreamed of.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

Raines is definitely a hall of famer. The problem with Raines in the minds of voters is that he was a jack of all trades and master of none. He could hiit a little bit (.280s)...hit for power a little bit (15-25 HR power), run a little bit (50 SB seasons in there...but not like Rickey), field a little bit (underrated in this respect)...but he was not seen as having a dominant skillset...and voters still don't have enouhg respect for walks, which was actually his best skill.

I see what you're saying, but I consider Raines to have been a dominant base-stealer. He stole 70+ six years in a row, ended up fifth on the all-time list, and has one of (if not the) best success rates ever. But, being a dominant base-stealer alone doesn't get you in the HOF like being a dominant power hitter (Killebrew) or high-average hitter (Tony Gwynn) does. I'm sure Vince Coleman could attest to that. All that aside, Raines was good at enough other things to make a pretty solid HOF case for himself.

[SABR Matt]

OK...I'll you the base-stealing thing, but like you said, that's a minor skill compared to being a productive hitter for average or for power and being a great fielder.

Of course Raines had enough power and drew plenty of walks and was therefore a good solid player.

[RuthMayBond]

Oh heck...one more to remind us of what a hall of famer looks like...Reggie Smith:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1977 NL 11.92 1.51 20.0 1.3 13.43
1978 NL 9.35 2.22 15.3 2.9 11.57
1971 AL 8.72 2.59 13.0 2.6 11.31
1974 NL 8.13 2.77 12.5 3.8 10.90
1973 AL 7.41 3.34 11.7 4.9 10.75
1968 AL 7.36 2.87 10.7 3.1 10.23
1970 AL 6.30 3.67 8.6 4.9 9.97
1972 AL 8.16 0.48 12.9 -0.9 8.64
1969 AL 6.48 1.83 9.1 1.2 8.31
1980 NL 5.78 2.51 9.3 4.0 8.29
1975 NL 6.27 1.77 9.0 2.2 8.04
1967 AL 4.07 3.00 4.2 3.2 7.07
1976 NL 3.45 2.44 4.2 3.7 5.89
1982 NL 5.03 0.67 7.6 0.5 5.70
1979 NL 2.80 1.88 3.9 2.9 4.68

Now THAT"S a hall of famer. Finishes in the 80s along with some of the others I listed due to a lack of an overwhelming peak, but that gorgeous ELP curve is worth a heck of a lot more than Deacon White ever dreamed of.I am THRILLED to hear you say this :highfive:

[SABR Matt]

Of course RMB, you've read my posts long enought o know I've been supporting Smith for some time now. :)

And he's underrated for the same reason that Cesar Cedeno and Jimmie Wynn are...batting average isn't good, therefore player = bad. LOL

[brett]

OK...I'll you the base-stealing thing, but like you said, that's a minor skill compared to being a productive hitter for average or for power and being a great fielder.

Of course Raines had enough power and drew plenty of walks and was therefore a good solid player.

I will always bump up good baserunners a little since it is not accounted for entirely. Maybe half a win per season? And I believe that Raines was something like +125 runs with his steals. How many wins is that going to be?

Was he a better player than Rose or Joe Jackson anyway?

[SABR Matt]

He was definitely a better player than Joe Jackson (O-Ver-Ra-Ted!!)...with Rose it depends on what you're looking for. Rose's total HOF value is going to exceed Raines'...here's that career:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1969 NL 12.66 1.51 20.7 0.9 14.17
1968 NL 10.63 2.52 16.9 3.0 13.15
1972 NL 9.73 1.82 14.8 1.8 11.55
1967 NL 7.39 3.68 10.7 5.3 11.07
1971 NL 8.57 1.80 12.7 1.5 10.37
1966 NL 7.36 2.95 10.3 2.9 10.31
1974 NL 7.30 2.95 9.7 4.0 10.25
1965 NL 7.89 2.00 11.0 0.8 9.89
1973 NL 8.89 0.94 13.0 -0.1 9.83
1979 NL 7.85 1.85 11.1 2.2 9.70
1975 NL 7.93 1.33 11.0 0.8 9.26
1976 NL 7.43 1.67 10.0 1.5 9.10
1978 NL 7.17 0.83 9.7 -0.1 8.00
1970 NL 6.45 1.40 8.3 0.7 7.85
1963 NL 5.19 2.00 6.0 1.0 7.19
1977 NL 6.45 0.51 8.3 -0.7 6.96
1980 NL 4.22 1.68 3.8 1.9 5.90
1982 NL 5.08 0.62 5.6 -0.3 5.70
1981 NL 4.07 1.01 5.1 1.0 5.08
1964 NL 2.23 2.49 0.9 2.7 4.72
1985 NL 4.14 0.36 5.1 -0.3 4.50
1984 NL 2.79 0.98 2.9 1.1 3.77
1983 NL 1.44 0.88 -0.6 0.5 2.32

One of the bulkiest tails in the history of major league baseball here. His ELP and peak weren't that great, but he sustained average performance for a looowwwwwnnnng time. In terms of rate of performance, you could make a case for Raines being ahead...but greatness is both durability and peak dominance.

[brett]

Interesting. I forgot. Do you have to adjust for position still?

[brett]

When you say Rose stayed average, again, with a positional factor?

[Paul Wendt]

As for the comments about meteorology and Clay Davenport...his early study of Coors Field is certainty a worthwhile study...but my intended study of weather variables in baseball will be much more extensive and inclusive (see comments in threads dedicated to the Fiato/Souders Matrix). And one good article does not a good sabermetrician make as Davenport's childishly simple metrics reveal.
It is reassuring to know that people earning PhDs at some universities nowadays do expect to make advances over work done 15 years ago.

But my point was that some people beside yourself, Davenport, me, and readers of this thread are aware of the fact that statistical studies of weather like statistical studies of baseball tend to be complicated by the sheer number of variables among other things. Thanks mainly to Clay Davenport, there are some people in baseball who know that students of meteorology [or all NOAA subject matters?] may not be daunted by the sheer complexity of baseball, may be able to step into the middle of some baseball streams pretty quickly.

Oh, of course, if someone pays for some sabrmetric work by contractors at long-distance, rather than hiring employees to relocate and staff their office, that may be a good opportunity for a PhD student or post-doc who is continuing rather than abandoning her/his field. I did misunderstand you or simply overlook that a ballclub might fund some work short of hiring new fulltime employees to staff a sabrmetric thinktank or whatever it would be.

With a little economic insight you may be able to give them parametric equation for what they will gain or lose by starting home games at 6pm or persuading MLB to give them five more home games in summer rather than spring. Expected number of innings played with the roof open may be easy enough, but what effect on sales of beer, or souvenir umbrellas?

[SABR Matt]

I was actually thinking one big application for the Mariners would be to test how closing the roof at Safeco impacts run scoring...give them a bit of a home field advantage...so they know when it's a good idea to close the roof and when not based on the starting match-up and the ambient weather.

That's one thing the F/S Matrix is designed to solve for, BTW...any discrete variable that has a linear impact on the game context can be thrown into the matrix for any specific application.

[SABR Matt]

And I agree with you that studying the weather has given me a unique ability to study baseball that few people realize (the similarities with the complexity of the problem are immense)...

Baseball might be my first love, but meteorology is a close second and if I don't get employed by baseball in the near future, I get a lot of satisfaction in studying the numerical weather prediction models and trying to improve our forecasts. You have to be kind of quixotic to want to study sabermetrics or NWP models...the problem is unsolvable in the absolute sense...all you can do is chip away and make baby steps forward.

[Mike90]

I'm saying that 127 is not even that high and he could only surpass it 3x, 159 is very high

Ok, that's true, but Bob Feller only has 4 seasons with an ERA+ above 127 (yes, I know about the war) and Robin Roberts, Nolan Ryan, and Steve Carlton all had 5. Sutton is not on the same level as those 4 pitchers, but they're all easy hall of famers. Sutton does not have to be as great as them to be deserving.

For me, the bigger problem with your comment is that it implies Sutton isn't deserving of the Hall because he failed the all-important "must have more than 3 seasons with an ERA+ > 127" standard. If you had changed that number to 125, he would have 5 seasons. Anyway, the standard ignores Sutton's greatest attribute: his incredible longetivity. 324 wins, 5282 innings, 3574 Ks, 58 Shutouts, 12 15-win seasons, 20 200-innings seasons. He gave his teams a lot of value for a lot of years. There is no precedent for leaving a pitcher with numbers like that out.

[SABR Matt]

Indeed...you don't have to be a particularly dominant player to make the HOF if you are valuable in another way (lnogevity and reliability).

See: Ripken, Cal.

[brett]

And I agree with you that studying the weather has given me a unique ability to study baseball that few people realize (the similarities with the complexity of the problem are immense)...

Baseball might be my first love, but meteorology is a close second and if I don't get employed by baseball in the near future, I get a lot of satisfaction in studying the numerical weather prediction models and trying to improve our forecasts. You have to be kind of quixotic to want to study sabermetrics or NWP models...the problem is unsolvable in the absolute sense...all you can do is chip away and make baby steps forward.

You have never done anything with chaotic systems analysis? That's all fractal geometry in my view.

[SABR Matt]

No...I have not. chaos mostly applies to the micrometeorology folks even though it can impact the larger systems...it's not something we can get into our numerical models other than using ensemble systems (where the initial conditions are chaotically perturbed slightly and the model is re-run to see how it changes the forecast).

[Mike90]

Indeed...you don't have to be a particularly dominant player to make the HOF if you are valuable in another way (lnogevity and reliability).

See: Ripken, Cal.

I remember Cal being dominant in 1983, 84, and 91.

[SABR Matt]

he had three good years and then a whole bunch of really mediocre ones. He still represents a great example of being solid but unspectacular for a really long time.

[joshfan]

Folks rail about peds but Freddie had a wonderful career during the ped heyday
The stats that the inquisition uses to defame the users or even might be users , considered balloooned
Those same stats that are "untrustworthy" are used to screw guys like McGriff
What is it?
OK folks say Freddie never finished in the top 2 of this or the top 3 of that
He finished behind those we are ready to crucify
Ask me , it makes him a first ballot
He put up massive numbers, clean,in an era that peds users
are the standard

[Cougar]

McGriff is a solid HOF choice in my book. 493 HR, good OBP and slugging, consistent performer year in and year out, robbed of his signature season by the '94 strike.

[SamtheBravesFan]

I would put McGriff in myself, because I'm a big Hall guy and I loved watching him play, and I even tried to mimic that swing of his. However, I'm not sure if he's going to crack 50% the time he's on the ballot, even if some of the voters decide to prop him up as a "clean" player.

[jalbright]

threads on McGriff merged

[bambambaseball]

Yes but barely!

[baseball junkie]

Unless Fred McGriff does something like admits to using PEDs or cheating on games or tryping other players about pitchers in return for future favors, he's a lock in my book. :twocents:

However, McGriff might be more famous as the greatest player not in the HOF than as the 17th or 18th best first baseman in Cooperstown -- just a thought.

[four tool]

Unless Fred McGriff does something like admits to using PEDs or cheating on games or tryping other players about pitchers in return for future favors, he's a lock in my book. :twocents:

However, McGriff might be more famous as the greatest player not in the HOF than as the 17th or 18th best first baseman in Cooperstown -- just a thought.

McGriff better than Joe Jackson or Pete Rose? Nope.

[Fuzzy Bear]

McGriff better than Joe Jackson or Pete Rose? Nope.

What's going to happen to the HOF if Barry Bonds, A-Rod, Manny Ramirez, Gary Sheffield, Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmiero, Miguel Tejada, and who knows who else might be added to the list, are excluded from the HOF? What's it going to look like if McGriff is in, and those guys aren't?

People really need to think about that for a minute. Electing McGriff, while excluding "the roiders" is, essentially, making the statement that "the roiders" were all inferior players to McGriff, but took a magic pill that turned them into Superman.

That, of course, is nonsense, but that's the implication if McGriff is inducted because he was "clean", while the "dirty" "cheaters" suffer the rejection of the BBWAA. Think about that for a minute; would such a result make sense in terms of the long arc of history?

[PVNICK]

Though to be fair as of say the strike season do you think anyone thought McGwire or Palmeiro was better than McGriff? What do the numbers say. They all came up in 1986 or 1987 and by 1988 all three were full-time starters. It was only with their performances in the back half of the 90s that McGwire and Palmeiro passed him.
Palmeiro OPS+ 104-150 McGwire 103-176 with a 225 in 107 AB in 1993 and only 87 and 92 over 150. McGriff 130-166 with 130 in his rookie year and lows otherwise of 143 and 147.

Now perhaps I am picking a convenient time since McGriff slid considerably in his early thirties starting in 1995 with OPS+ in the 110s while they took off.

Sheff is young and nearly won a triple crown in 1992 before having a few good but not HOF seasons until really hitting his stride in 97 and then in 1999-05.
Bonds we have heard the arguments on so no point in boring anyone anuyy more than I already have. Rose got himself banned. He's overrated if anyone thinks he's a first tier all time great. He just played long enough to break a hallowed record. For all we know A-Rod is Billy Batson.

[four tool]

. For all we know A-Rod is Billy Batson.

Marvelous way to put it.

[Paul Wendt]

Though to be fair as of say the strike season do you think anyone thought McGwire or Palmeiro was better than McGriff? What do the numbers say. They all came up in 1986 or 1987 and by 1988 all three were full-time starters. It was only with their performances in the back half of the 90s that McGwire and Palmeiro passed him.
Palmeiro OPS+ 104-150 McGwire 103-176 with a 225 in 107 AB in 1993 and only 87 and 92 over 150. McGriff 130-166 with 130 in his rookie year and lows otherwise of 143 and 147.

Now perhaps I am picking a convenient time since McGriff slid considerably in his early thirties starting in 1995 with OPS+ in the 110s while they took off.
Yes indeed.

If that's what you want, baseball-reference provides "subcareer" records for any timespan.
Simply click the first line and last line of the span. For example,
Fred McGriff 1987-1994 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mcgrifr01.shtml?redir#1987-1994-sum:batting_standard)
4709 plate appearances at OPS+ 153

McGwire, 3948 at 144
Palmeiro, 4755 at 132

Will Clark, 4889 at 147

The span is 1987-1994 in every case. Clark was a good regular player in 1986 when all four made their debuts.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

Electing McGriff, while excluding "the roiders" is, essentially, making the statement that "the roiders" were all inferior players to McGriff, but took a magic pill that turned them into Superman.

I'm all for inducting every PED user you named except Tejada. However, if the BBWAA is to exclude them, it would not be a statement about their respective on-field performances. Rather, it would be a statement about their ethics. Anyone who doubts that Bonds, Clemens, Ramirez, A-Rod, etc. had/have HOF talent is not very knowledgeable on the subject of baseball. To exclude them would be the equivalent of punishing them for cheating, not questioning their ability.

[blacksilverfan12]

Some basic stats...
.284 average
493 home runs
2490 hits
1550 RBI's

[bob]

HOF monitor: 100 points (151st)
Black Ink: 9 points (>200th)
Grey Ink: 105 points (>200th)

His stats arent HOF worthy IMO. He was before my time (started watching in '05) so i can only really go on stats but his peak was never great and he was more of a compiler than anything. Maybe if he played in a more demanding position, but as a 1B playing in the nineties he really hasnt done enough, there are a fair few from his era who are just like him or significantly better, he just hung around long enough to improve his counting stats.
Would he have a much better chance if he hit 7 more homeruns and 10 more hits? Probably but IMO it wouldnt make him any more HOF worthy in my opinion.

[dgarza]

His stats arent HOF worthy IMO. He was before my time (started watching in '05) so i can only really go on stats but his peak was never great and he was more of a compiler than anything. Maybe if he played in a more demanding position, but as a 1B playing in the nineties he really hasnt done enough, there are a fair few from his era who are just like him or significantly better, he just hung around long enough to improve his counting stats.
Would he have a much better chance if he hit 7 more homeruns and 10 more hits? Probably but IMO it wouldnt make him any more HOF worthy in my opinion.McGriff should be seen as a late 80s/early 90s player, not just as a 90s player.
He's kind of a sleeper candidate. Kind of like an Eddie Murray-lite.

Consider that for 9 years, nearly a decade, from 1987-1995, no one hit more HRs than Fred McGriff (not McGwire, not Bonds [who won 3 MVPs in that time]):

Cnt Player HR G From To
+----+-----------------+---+----+----+----+
1 Fred McGriff 289 1288 1987 1995
2 Barry Bonds 276 1312 1987 1995
3 Mark McGwire 274 1076 1987 1995
4 Joe Carter 270 1355 1987 1995
5 Jose Canseco 262 1059 1987 1995
6 Cecil Fielder 242 1031 1987 1995
7 Matt Williams 225 1015 1987 1995
8 Bobby Bonilla 214 1296 1987 1995
9 Andre Dawson 211 1142 1987 1995
10 Kevin Mitchell 208 973 1987 1994


His OPS+ during that time was also one of the best (and best with McGwire among 1B with 1000 games):

Cnt Player OPS+ G From To
+----+-----------------+----+----+----+----+
1 Barry Bonds 163 1312 1987 1995
2 Fred McGriff 149 1288 1987 1995
3 Mark McGwire 149 1076 1987 1995
4 Will Clark 144 1282 1987 1995
5 Rickey Henderson 142 1105 1987 1995
6 Jose Canseco 141 1059 1987 1995
7 Bobby Bonilla 137 1296 1987 1995
8 Paul Molitor 136 1251 1987 1995
9 Danny Tartabull 136 1105 1987 1995
10 Wade Boggs 134 1266 1987 1995
11 Tony Gwynn 134 1218 1987 1995
12 John Kruk 134 1078 1987 1995

[rsuriyop]

This one's always boggled my mind. Eddie Murray is hardly that much better than McGriff, yet he makes it into the HOF easily and is seen by some as a top 5 all-time first baseman. McGriff, on the other hand, for some reason or another is often seen as just borderline, which I don't get. Of course, Murray gets extra points for having a slightly longer career and being a better defender (which matters very little since it's only first base we're talking here), but that's really just about it; he doesn't "slam" McGriff.

I voted yes, by the way.

[jalbright]

Threads merged.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

FYI. Eddie Murray and Fred McGriff.



G PA R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB
Murray 3026 11336 1627 3255 560 35 504 1917 110 43 1333 1516 .287 .359 .476 .836 129 5397
McGriff 2460 10174 1349 2490 441 24 493 1550 72 38 1305 1882 .284 .377 .509 .886 134 4458


Eddie has almost 600 more games played. That is significant.

[nerfan]

McGriff is a lower-to-middle-tier Hall of Famer for me. He's right there with, say, Richie Ashburn in terms of value.

[rsuriyop]

FYI. Eddie Murray and Fred McGriff.



G PA R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB
Murray 3026 11336 1627 3255 560 35 504 1917 110 43 1333 1516 .287 .359 .476 .836 129 5397
McGriff 2460 10174 1349 2490 441 24 493 1550 72 38 1305 1882 .284 .377 .509 .886 134 4458


Eddie has almost 600 more games played. That is significant.

Yes, but McGriff also has a 5pt advantage in OPS+ and has also played a bit deeper into the steroid era, which obscures the adjusted rates for non-suspected users. Until his name is mentioned, I will continue to view him (and Murray) as clean. And while I'll agree that Murray's numbers are still superior nonetheless because of career length, that still isn't enough to crush McGriff, at least not to the point where he is an easy no questions asked slam-dunk HOFer and McGriff is just on the outside looking in--no way.

[RyanExpress30]

Si, senor . . .

[CircleChange11]

I have 16 reasons why McGriff should and should not be a HOFer.


No
17. The endorsement in the Tom Emanski defensive drils commercial.



I cannot say that I give Crime Dog my "full recommendation". :D

He does have 1 top 5 MVP vote year, and 3 other top 10's ... but IMO, McGriff had about as good of a career as one can have and not be in the HoF.

His post-season numbers, including a WS ring, might be something that nudges him 'very close', then it just depends on the flavor of the HoF voters.

He'll be an interesting candidate to watch.

[micsmith]

Do you think Hall voters would keep out a player (no indication of PEDs) who:

1. Led the league in wins twice but ended up with 296 career wins.

OR

2. Led the league in hits twice but ended up with 2958 career hits.

OR

3. Led the league in homers twice but ended up with 493 career homers.


Because they are all the same % from the "magic" numbers.

Seems like McGriff should go in.

[mwiggins]

They might if that hypothetical player was only a 5 time All-Star, had never come close to winning an MVP, and had never hit more than 37 HR's (despite playing through the most HR friendly era in baseball history).

And if that player had neither a great sustained peak or an especially long career, and was a below average defender who offered little value outside of his bat - well, that wouldn't help either. Hypothetically, of course.

[jalbright]

last two posts merged into McGriff thread.

[Jsquared83]

They might if that hypothetical player was only a 5 time All-Star, had never come close to winning an MVP, had never hit more than 37 HR's (despite playing through the most HR friendly era in baseball history), and had only driven in 100 runs 3 times.

And if that player had neither a great sustained peak or an especially long career, and was a below average defender who offered little value outside of his bat - well, that wouldn't help either. Hypothetically, of course.

Didn't McGriff drive in 100 8 times?

[mwiggins]

Didn't McGriff drive in 100 8 times?

You're right. Not sure what I was looking at.

[Jsquared83]

You're right. Not sure what I was looking at.

No prob. Even so, he peaked at only 107 RBI. It's a shame about '94, he would have driven in 120+ and might have made a run at Bagwell's injury shortened #s for MVP that year.

[Los Bravos]

You're right. Not sure what I was looking at.The same page Jeff Brantley was looking at that time when he claimed that Fred had never led the league in homers ;)

[steveironcity]

If he ever does get in, he should have this cap on his plaque

http://cdn.bleacherreport.com/images_root/slideshows/731/slideshow_73104/display_image.jpg

[CircleChange11]

In interviews, McGriff said his teammates never let him live that commercial down ... neither have I.

[GiambiJuice]

Isn't is silly that if he had 7 more career home runs he'd be a 1st ballot Hall of Famer, no questions asked. But he may never get in because of those 7 home runs?

I don't see the problem here. 134 OPS+ over more than 10,000 PA's is excellent. He was just as good as Eddie Murray. Maybe even slightly better. Ah but those 7 pesky little homers....

[Sockeye]

Isn't is silly that if he had 7 more career home runs he'd be a 1st ballot Hall of Famer, no questions asked. But he may never get in because of those 7 home runs?

I don't see the problem here. 134 OPS+ over more than 10,000 PA's is excellent. He was just as good as Eddie Murray. Maybe even slightly better. Ah but those 7 pesky little homers....

Couldn't agree more! If not for the strike in 94-95 he would have those 7 pesky little homers too. He deserves to go in on the 1st ballot.

[ipitch]

Isn't is silly that if he had 7 more career home runs he'd be a 1st ballot Hall of Famer, no questions asked. But he may never get in because of those 7 home runs?

It's a crime, dog.

[Los Bravos]

It might cost him first ballot status, but he'll get in.

[Fuzzy Bear]

It might cost him first ballot status, but he'll get in.

Over time, I've come to think this. Lord, Jim Rice isn't half the player McGriff was, and he made it in year 15.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

If he ever does get in, he should have this cap on his plaque

http://cdn.bleacherreport.com/images_root/slideshows/731/slideshow_73104/display_image.jpg

I think the BBWAA might make him wait 5 ballots because of that commercial alone :D

[Fuzzy Bear]

Do you think Hall voters would keep out a player (no indication of PEDs) who:

1. Led the league in wins twice but ended up with 296 career wins.

OR

2. Led the league in hits twice but ended up with 2958 career hits.

OR

3. Led the league in homers twice but ended up with 493 career homers.


Because they are all the same % from the "magic" numbers.

Seems like McGriff should go in.

The issue here is that 500 HRs seems to have become a "lesser" milestone, in part due to steroids, but, in part, due to the other factors that have resulted in a more HR-driven game.

It's easier to get 500 HRs than it is to get 3,000 hits or 300 wins if you want to base it on the percentage of players active in the last 20 years that have reached those milestones.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

Seriously though, upon a re-examination of his stats, it appears McGriff belongs. He would certainly be at minimum in the middle tier of HOFers in terms of career offensive production at a power position (1B, 3B, LF, RF). He probably sinks closer to the bottom tier when relative performance is adjusted for era context, but still firmly entrenched nonetheless.

The thing I like about McGriff is that while he didn't put up individual monster season the Giambis, McGwires & Delgados did, he was extremely consistent year to year. He basically put 15 years of high output offensive output together uninterrupted (save for '97 & '98 which were about average for position). He's very similar to Eddie Murray in that regard. I think McGriff will get in but not initially; he's a good candidate to get elected in a year in which the candidate pool is on the thinner side.

One other point: His lack of achieving 500 HR will not hurt him much. The writers will rightfully assume he would have attained that milestone if the baseball strike hadn't occurred.

[Paul Wendt]

It's easier to get 500 HRs than it is to get 3,000 hits or 300 wins if you want to base it on the percentage of players active in the last 20 years that have reached those milestones.
That was true when I first looked at the career lists. With Gibson and Marichal in the low 200s, Palmer and Sutton still in double digits (not listed), I thought 300 wins was an archaic joke. There would never be another. I wonder whether people ten years earlier, including Early Wynn and Warren Spahn, thought that one of them would be the last one, if he made it.*

Meanwhile, not only did Mays, Aaron, Robinson and Killebrew zoom past 500 homeruns but Mantle, Mathews, Banks, and finally McCovey nudged into the once-select group. Just like that Lou Gehrig and Stan Musial at 493 and 475 slipped from ranks 5-6 to 13-14 --including seven steps down in seven seasons 1965 to 1971.

400 homeruns and 250 wins were considered Hall of Fame milestones.

[Los Bravos]

The thing I like about McGriff is that while he didn't put up individual monster season the Giambis, McGwires & Delgados did, he was extremely consistent year to year. He basically put 15 years of high output offensive output together uninterrupted (save for '97 & '98 which were about average for position). He's very similar to Eddie Murray in that regard.Exactly. If a player had produced these same numbers playing from 1976 to 1994, he would have been a shoe in.

If the writers are going to punish perceived PED users by ignoring the numbers they think are tainted, it only follows that they should take a second look at those who had numbers previously considered Hall worthy but who were made to look pale in comparison to the career totals accumulated by the players who made up the '90's offensive explosion.

[Jsquared83]

Seriously though, upon a re-examination of his stats, it appears McGriff belongs. He would certainly be at minimum in the middle tier of HOFers in terms of career offensive production at a power position (1B, 3B, LF, RF). He probably sinks closer to the bottom tier when relative performance is adjusted for era context, but still firmly entrenched nonetheless.

The thing I like about McGriff is that while he didn't put up individual monster season the Giambis, McGwires & Delgados did, he was extremely consistent year to year. He basically put 15 years of high output offensive output together uninterrupted (save for '97 & '98 which were about average for position). He's very similar to Eddie Murray in that regard. I think McGriff will get in but not initially; he's a good candidate to get elected in a year in which the candidate pool is on the thinner side.

One other point: His lack of achieving 500 HR will not hurt him much. The writers will rightfully assume he would have attained that milestone if the baseball strike hadn't occurred.

If McGriff's career started and ended 5 years earlier, say 81-99ish, he'd be a first ballot HOFer.

[RuthMayBond]

If McGriff's career started and ended 5 years earlier, say 81-99ish, he'd be a first ballot HOFer.If he hit 103 FEWER homers, he'd be not just a Hall of Famer, but first ballot? :shrug:
He included years of 144 and 125 OPS+ after 1999!
Now he could have done without 2003-04

[Jsquared83]

If he hit 103 FEWER homers, he'd be not just a Hall of Famer, but first ballot? :shrug:
He included years of 144 and 125 OPS+ after 1999!
Now he could have done without 2003-04

No, youre misunderstanding. If his whole career and body of work was shifted 5 years back, before the mass PED explosion, his 493/1550 RBIs would look a lot strong being put up in the 80s and early to mid 90s as opposed to the late 80s into the early 2000s when everyone was putting up 30/100 years.

[CircleChange11]

If McGriff's career started and ended 5 years earlier, say 81-99ish, he'd be a first ballot HOFer.

Yeah, and if I were 7'3, I'd be an NBA center. :waving

[Jsquared83]

Yeah, and if I were 7'3, I'd be an NBA center. :waving

lol sigh.. I was just pointing out how a very productive career like McGriff's gets somewhat overlooked in the midst of the steroid era

[Los Bravos]

lol sigh.. I was just pointing out how a very productive career like McGriff's gets somewhat overlooked in the midst of the steroid eraIt's a very valid point, the same one I was trying to make when I wrote:Exactly. If a player had produced these same numbers playing from 1976 to 1994, he would have been a shoe in.

[Paul Wendt]

lol sigh.. I was just pointing out how a very productive career like McGriff's gets somewhat overlooked in the midst of the steroid era
There is some truth in this but McGriff was in his prime before the strike, 1987-94, not to mention the steroid era. He never achieved the visibility or general reputation of George Bell, his predecessor and teammate in Toronto, nor of Joe Carter, another principal in the big trade with San Diego.

[Jsquared83]

It's a very valid point, the same one I was trying to make when I wrote:

Exactly. Sorry, I must have overlooked your post. His 31/102/.306 144 OPS+ year of 2001 and almost identical 1999 gets overshadowed by the 60/70 HR PED monsters as to where 30-35 HR would have gotten him a top 10 and maybe even top 5 showing in HR ten years earlier.

[Los Bravos]

Exactly. I've been trying to make that point almost since I got here. It's one reason that I'm as much of a stickler over PEDs and the Hall as I am. I hated seeing apparently sane people actually buy the idea that someone like Sammy Sosa was twice the player that men like Dawson or Eddie Murray were on the basis of those bloated pseudo-numbers.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Exactly. I've been trying to make that point almost since I got here. It's one reason that I'm as much of a stickler over PEDs and the Hall as I am. I hated seeing apparently sane people actually buy the idea that someone like Sammy Sosa was twice the player that men like Dawson or Eddie Murray were on the basis of those bloated pseudo-numbers.

PEDs or not, Sosa wasn't better than these guys for one reason; he didn't walk a whole lot for much of his career.

McGriff would have made it to 500 HRs if he had been brought up and installed in the lineup when he was ready, and if there had been no strike in 1994. We wouldn't be debating then.

[Los Bravos]

McGriff would have made it to 500 HRs if he had been brought up and installed in the lineup when he was ready, and if there had been no strike in 1994. We wouldn't be debating then.The second one is a key point that's often mentioned here. The first is equally important but it's rarely brought up.

[Brad Harris]

There is some truth in this but McGriff was in his prime before the strike, 1987-94, not to mention the steroid era. He never achieved the visibility or general reputation of George Bell, his predecessor and teammate in Toronto, nor of Joe Carter, another principal in the big trade with San Diego.
Which just goes to show that greatness and popularity aren't the same thing.

[houfan]

Exactly. I've been trying to make that point almost since I got here. It's one reason that I'm as much of a stickler over PEDs and the Hall as I am. I hated seeing apparently sane people actually buy the idea that someone like Sammy Sosa was twice the player that men like Dawson or Eddie Murray were on the basis of those bloated pseudo-numbers.

Thank you for the sanity and sensibility of your comments. Right there is the problem in using stats when you're talking about players in the PED era. If someone tries to tell you everyone was using PED's in the PED era they are being dishonest. The facts, as we know them, don't bear that out. In the only wide scale testing we are aware of, the 2003 testing of players, how many tested positive out of 750 players? 104, right? You could also reasonably assume an equal number were using HGH. That may or may not be the case, but let's just assume that. That brings the figure to 208 players out of 750. That means 72% of players weren't using anything except for their God given talent.

I bring this up, because over the last several years, several star players who were thought of as future HOFers have been dragged through the mud of this on going steroid scandal. Some of these players had monster years that dwarfed some of McGriff's stats in those years. Point is, you practically have to throw out their stats and performance when you are trying to assess McGriff's performance in that era. If a player is HOF worthy, he will have to be one of the most dominant players in his era. Frankly, that's why players like Bob Doerr and Joe Gordon are in the Hall, as they were two of the most dominant players at their position in that era. PED usage by some of those other players in the PED era has tarnished their numbers, and cast doubt on whether they really were dominant players. If they needed PED's to put up those numbers, just how dominant could they truly have been? McGriff has never been implicated, and his name never comes up when steroids are discussed. I'm guessing McGriff was one of those 72% who didn't use. I'm hoping I'm right about that. If so, then 493 home runs without PED's is a pretty amazing stat.

I say Fred McGriff is a Hall of Famer.