Fred McGriff--HOF?

[17erstad]

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

Fred McGriff HOF?

Yes
1. 80 RBI each year 1988-2002, only Hank Aaron better with 17 straight.
2. Third All-time in games at first base, with #2 Jake Beckley and #1 Eddie Murray in.
3. 9.12 Range factor with average 8.25.
4. In 10 Postseason series, 50 games, (.303, 10, 37) 11 2B, 36R
5. The 1993 Braves run, down 9 games on July 18.
6. 493 HR, 21st all time.
7. TB 4,458, 38th all time.
8. RBI 1550, 34th all time.
9. Walks 1305, 34th all time.
10. Extra Base Hits 958, 31st all time.
11. 19 HR each year 1987-2002.
12. 1988-1994, 30 HR 7 straight years.
13. 30 times 6 from 1988-1993, 12th player at that time to do so.
14. Times on base 3834, 45th all-time.
15. 1994 All-Star game MVP.
16. Lead each league in HR – McGriff, Robinson, and McGwire.

No
1. Not at 500 HR.
2. Black ink 9, AVG HOF 27
3. Gray ink, 105, AVG HOF 144
4. HOF Standards 47.9, AVG HOF 50.
5. HOF Monitor 100.
6. Career High 111 Runs.
7. Career High 37 HR.
8. Career High 107 RBI.
9. Career High 37 2Bs.
10. Five time all-star.
11. 2000 All-star only because of each team represented?
12. Highest is 4th in MVP voting.
13. Fan attitude.
14. Average fielding percentage.
15. Number one in games caught at one time didn’t get Bob Boone in.
16. How many better First Basemen for that time? McGwire, Palmeiro, Bagwell, Thomas, others?

Are there any other reasons as to why or why not?

[iPod]

The OPS+ of the Hall of Fame's first basemen, plus McGriff. Just thought I'd throw it out there.

Lou Gehrig: 179
Dan Brouthers: 170
Jimmie Foxx: 163
Hank Greenberg: 158
Johnny Mize: 158
Roger Connor: 154
Willie McCovey: 148
Harmon Killebrew: 143
Cap Anson: 141
Bill Terry: 136
Frank Chance: 135
Fred McGriff: 134
Orlando Cepeda: 133
Eddie Murray: 129
Jake Beckley: 125
Jim Bottomley: 125
George Sisler: 124
Tony Perez: 122
George Kelly: 110

[mac195]

If McGriff doesn't make it, he may wind up as the best long career hitter outside the Hall. His fielding stats are quite poor, and he wasn't a good baserunner, but he probably had more value at the plate in his career than half of the people already in the HOF.

[17erstad]

If McGwire were the 19th HOF first basemen, then McGriff were the 20th, McGriff would be 13th on the list of the 20. McGwire is at 163.

[trosmok]

McGriff, with all those stats over his long career still strikes me as a one of a kind. He was absolutely the laziest major leaguer I ever saw play in my life. I vote no for this, and only this reason.

[DoubleX]

McGriff is a tough one. His career overlapped with the offense boom of the past decade, but his prime came just before that when hitting 30 homeruns year after year was actually significant. Unfortunately, since much of his career was played during the boom, he probably won't get the proper credit he deserves for what he did in the late 80s and early 90s. I envision McGriff lingering on the Hall ballot, perhaps getting as high as the 50-60% range (like Jim Rice and Andre Dawson), and perhaps even breaking through in the later years (like Tony Perez). If he doesn't break through, he would make a good VC candidate (like Orlando Cepeda).

Would he get my vote? Probably not right a way because I'm not 100% sure he belongs, but I could see voting for him in later years.

[dgarza]

I like him as a HOFer personally.
I think the voters will get him in, just not at first, but before he reaches VC status.
I'm suprised his HOF Monitor is just 100.0

[dgarza]

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

Fred McGriff HOF?

No
1. Not at 500 HR.
5. HOF Monitor 100.
7. Career High 37 HR.
15. Number one in games caught at one time didn’t get Bob Boone in.

These are not really reasons to say "No"
1. 493 HRs is a BAD reason to say "No"
5. HOF Monitor 100 is a GOOD reason to say "Yes"
7. 37 HRs in a season is not a low number - the year before he lead the league with less
15. #1 in games caught just is NOT a negative thing- it may not be HOF impressive, but it is not a thing to say "No" about

[The Commissioner]

How much do we want to weigh the era that McGriff played in against him? I'd like for someone to please give me a definitive answer so that I can know how to weigh his stats in his disfavor. Just on the surface if we compare his stats to a few other players in Cooperstown it seems difficult to see why McGriff should not be there amongst them:

McGriff .284 BA, .509 Slg, 2490 hits, 493 HR, 1550 RBI
McCovey .270 BA, .509 Slg, 2211 hits, 521 HR, 1555 RBI
Stargell .270 BA, .515 Slg, 2282 hits, 475 HR, 1540 RBI
Billy Williams .290 BA, .492 Slg, 2711 hits, 426 HR, 1475 RBI
Matthews .271 BA, .509 Slg, 2315 hits, 512 HR, 1453 RBI
Banks .274 BA, .500 Slg, 2583 hits, 512 HR, 1636 RBI

I might possibly buy that McGriff is not as worthy as any of those other individuals on that list, but is he really significantly less worthy? Does he really not belong among that same group for his career. Why not?

[julusnc]

I actually like Crime Dog as a canidate.

[mac195]

is he really significantly less worthy? Does he really not belong among that same group for his career. Why not?

Yes, I think he is significantly less worthy than anyone on that list, less enough to make him a borderline candidate, while the rest are solid HOFers. Mathews and Banks were good fielders at important positions (at least Banks was in the first part of his career), so they are easily ahead of McGriff. Williams was also quite a bit more valuable in the field. McCovey and Stargell were much better hitters, especially at their peaks.

[cubbieinexile]

For me it is really easy. Is McGriff one of the five best first basemen of all time? No. Okay then is he one of the top ten? Nope. Alright then how about top 15? Nada. Last one how about top 20? Incorrect.

I see no reason to add to the clutter that has become the plaque room with another player that was not even the best of his time let alone of all time.

[The Commissioner]

Yes, I think he is significantly less worthy than anyone on that list, less enough to make him a borderline candidate, while the rest are solid HOFers. Mathews and Banks were good fielders at important positions (at least Banks was in the first part of his career), so they are easily ahead of McGriff. Williams was also quite a bit more valuable in the field. McCovey and Stargell were much better hitters, especially at their peaks.


McGriff has never been a Gold Glover, but a career .992 fielding percentage also isn't disgraceful or shabby by any means.

[cubbieinexile]

Looking just in the last 20 years there are 37 other first basemen who played at least 500 games with a better fielding percentage. Or to put another way McGriff was the 17th worst fielding first basemen in the last 20 years.

the number 1? Mo Vaughn at .988. The best? Travis Lee at .996

[Naliamegod]

How much do we want to weigh the era that McGriff played in against him? I'd like for someone to please give me a definitive answer so that I can know how to weigh his stats in his disfavor. Just on the surface if we compare his stats to a few other players in Cooperstown it seems difficult to see why McGriff should not be there amongst them:

McGriff .284 BA, .509 Slg, 2490 hits, 493 HR, 1550 RBI
McCovey .270 BA, .509 Slg, 2211 hits, 521 HR, 1555 RBI
Stargell .270 BA, .515 Slg, 2282 hits, 475 HR, 1540 RBI
Billy Williams .290 BA, .492 Slg, 2711 hits, 426 HR, 1475 RBI
Matthews .271 BA, .509 Slg, 2315 hits, 512 HR, 1453 RBI
Banks .274 BA, .500 Slg, 2583 hits, 512 HR, 1636 RBI

I might possibly buy that McGriff is not as worthy as any of those other individuals on that list, but is he really significantly less worthy? Does he really not belong among that same group for his career. Why not?

With the possible exception of Billy Williams.. McGriff was a much lesser player then all of those players. Their raw stats seem similar... but all those players (Minus Williams) played in weaker offensive eras and had higher OPS+. All but Williams and Mathews were MVP winners. Banks and Mathews played much more critical defensive positions.

[Edgartohof]

Mcgriff is a between afore mentioned willie's (stargell and mccovey) and raphael palmeiro.

statistically speaking, he is most similar to the "Willie's", but in action, by being a good/very good player for a long time, he is like palmeiro (just not as good). He was a very good player, but he never shined as bright as some players, but he was always there, towards the top.

Maybe I like to support the underdog (yes, pun intended), but I truly believe he deserves in and will (one day) get in, so I am throwing my support behind the "Crime Dog".

[Aegis]

I remember watching the Crime Dog smash homers for the Braves, and he's a personal favorite, but I'd like to see him now muster a season or two better than that minimal effort he turned in for Tampa last year. I remember there was a low buzz about how both he and Griffey were chasing 500 at the same time. Griffey hit it, but we're still waiting for McGriff. Maybe he doesn't have any more gas in the tank. If he's done, then I'd vote for him just because I like him, and that's a poor reason to vote for anybody.

Check that. Looks like he was released. By the Devil Rays. Last July. And still hasn't been picked up. That's not a good sign.

I'd love to see him in the Hall, but right now, I just don't think I could really justify it...

[Edgartohof]

I remember watching the Crime Dog smash homers for the Braves, and he's a personal favorite, but I'd like to see him now muster a season or two better than that minimal effort he turned in for Tampa last year. I remember there was a low buzz about how both he and Griffey were chasing 500 at the same time. Griffey hit it, but we're still waiting for McGriff. Maybe he doesn't have any more gas in the tank. If he's done, then I'd vote for him just because I like him, and that's a poor reason to vote for anybody.

Check that. Looks like he was released. By the Devil Rays. Last July. And still hasn't been picked up. That's not a good sign.

I'd love to see him in the Hall, but right now, I just don't think I could really justify it...

To add on to what I said before, I feel a bit like this too. I would bote for him partially just because I like him, but I would like to see some more production to his career, maybe end on a slightly higher note. but I still think he has done enough so far to get in.

I also believe that come closer to spring training, we will see someone pick him up, if for no other reason to have another veteran at camp, if not to actually sign him for the season - where I do not know, but we shall see.

[mac195]

McGriff has never been a Gold Glover, but a career .992 fielding percentage also isn't disgraceful or shabby by any means.

True. I notice that .992 puts him at league average for first basemen of his era. But how much of a player's fielding value can be judged by the number of errors he is charged with? I know that the comprehensive fielding stats are hardly perfected at this point, but McGriff's don't look very good. He is -113 runs for his career compared to an average fielding 1st baseman, and just 21 above a replacement level player. That is substantially worse that McCovey, who was no great shakes himself (-60 FRAA, and +76 FRAR).

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/mcgrifr01.shtml

[mac195]

Not that McGriff doesn't have a pretty good case for the HOF. He has 1686 career runs created, which can't be said of many players who have been passed over, if any at all. And McGriff was a very good, borderline great, offensive player for 7 straight years, which is more than can be said for many HOFers, including a certain Reds 1st baseman who was elected not too long ago.

[RuthMayBond]

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

[The Commissioner]

With the possible exception of Billy Williams.. McGriff was a much lesser player then all of those players. Their raw stats seem similar... but all those players (Minus Williams) played in weaker offensive eras and had higher OPS+. All but Williams and Mathews were MVP winners. Banks and Mathews played much more critical defensive positions.

Alright, then tell me how much do we weigh McGriff's era against him? Do we reduce his batting average by 5 points? 10? 20? 50? 100? Do we take away 25 homers? 50? 100? 300? Do we reduce his runs batted in by 50? 500? 1000? If people are going to mention that he played in a stronger offensive era, and hold that against him, then they are obviously weighing down his totals in their minds in comparison to others. I would just like to know by exactly how much less I should be perceiving his totals in comparison? What is a fair way of perceiving this so that we don't overvalue McGriff in comparison to those players with him he would appear to have comparable totals?

[csh19792001]

Alright, then tell me how much do we weigh McGriff's era against him? Do we reduce his batting average by 5 points? 10? 20? 50? 100? Do we take away 25 homers? 50? 100? 300? Do we reduce his runs batted in by 50? 500? 1000? If people are going to mention that he played in a stronger offensive era, and hold that against him, then they are obviously weighing down his totals in their minds in comparison to others. I would just like to know by exactly how much less I should be perceiving his totals in comparison? What is a fair way of perceiving this so that we don't overvalue McGriff in comparison to those players with him he would appear to have comparable totals?

It depends on what you want to look at, commish.

Well, the quick and dirty method is OPS+, but it's extremely imprecise and amalgamates three stats that really have no business being combined.

Slightly more precise is to figure out a player's points above the league average in BA, SLG, and OBP (if you want to look at rate stat adjustments).

An even more precise method is to compare the overall R/G and HR/G in McGriff's career as compared to the other players mentioned, and adjust his statistics down accordingly, in line with the percentage difference due to era. Since HR's are so cheap now, he'll fair very poorly against guys like Billy Williams, who ostensibly looks like a similar offensive player at the plate (without unadjusting stats).

Finally, if you want to get a precise, impartial look at counting (cumulative totals) in their proper historical run context, you would have to look at the run production of the TEAMS each player was on; just as pitchers get run support, as do hitters (when we are talking about career numbers). A player's statistics are largely a product of his park, era played in, and lineups he batted in.

Figuring out the actual adjustments is painstaking- and I've done it before for specific players, but it yields far more intricate and precise conclusions than a cursory glance at OPS+.

[RuthMayBond]

Slightly more precise is to figure out a player's points above the league average in BA, SLG, and OBP (if you want to look at rate stat adjustments).

Since HR's are so cheap now, he'll fair very poorly against guys like Billy Williams, who ostensibly looks like a similar offensive player at the plate (without unadjusting stats).
Isn't it more precise to figure out a player's PERCENT above league average?
Did you adjust BiWilliams' stats down for Wrigley?

[csh19792001]

Isn't it more precise to figure out a player's PERCENT above league average?

Did you adjust BiWilliams' stats down for Wrigley?

1. Why is percent more precise? A guy hits .290 against a league .260- another .320 against a league .260- the point scale is the same.

2. No, I didn't actually go through and do any of this- it was a proposition posed as an answer to the questions of the Commish. Yes, Billy Williams' stats were inflated by his park (at least, his homeruns). So he gets routed by his era, but greatly helped by his park (for HR, at least, I don't have his other splits).

Here are the splits for some Wrigleyites-

Ron Santo 212 / 125
Ernie Banks 290 / 222
Billy Williams 231 / 161
Ryne Sandberg 164 / 118
Sammy Sosa 307/267

[RuthMayBond]

1. Why is percent more precise? A guy hits .290 against a league .260- another .320 against a league .260- the point scale is the same.

2. No, I didn't actually go through and do any of this- it was a proposition posed as an answer to the questions of the Commish. Yes, Billy Williams' stats were inflated by his park (at least, his homeruns). So he gets routed by his era, but greatly helped by his park (for HR, at least, I don't have his other splits).

Here are the splits for some Wrigleyites-

Ron Santo 212 / 125
Ernie Banks 290 / 222
Billy Williams 231 / 161
Ryne Sandberg 164 / 118
Sammy Sosa 307/267
1. Is it more impressive to be 39 points above league in 1908/1968 or to be 40 points above league in 1894/1930/2000?
2. Yeah, I'd say Williams & Santo were helped with HR at least a little

[mac195]

Baseball Prospectus has "tranlated batting statistics" available. I don't know percisely how they come up with them, but I imagine it is a process similar to what Chris is talking about. It looks as though they are normalized to the year the system was made, probably near the peak of the current high offense period. Anyway...


BA OBA SA HR RBI

McGriff .289 .384 .537 572 1569
McCovey .283 .391 .562 603 1624
Stargell .292 .375 .575 559 1618
Williams .290 .367 .529 526 1555

McGriff fares better than I would have thought.

[The Commissioner]

It depends on what you want to look at, commish.

Well, the quick and dirty method is OPS+, but it's extremely imprecise and amalgamates three stats that really have no business being combined.

Slightly more precise is to figure out a player's points above the league average in BA, SLG, and OBP (if you want to look at rate stat adjustments).

An even more precise method is to compare the overall R/G and HR/G in McGriff's career as compared to the other players mentioned, and adjust his statistics down accordingly, in line with the percentage difference due to era. Since HR's are so cheap now, he'll fair very poorly against guys like Billy Williams, who ostensibly looks like a similar offensive player at the plate (without unadjusting stats).

Finally, if you want to get a precise, impartial look at counting (cumulative totals) in their proper historical run context, you would have to look at the run production of the TEAMS each player was on; just as pitchers get run support, as do hitters (when we are talking about career numbers). A player's statistics are largely a product of his park, era played in, and lineups he batted in.

Figuring out the actual adjustments is painstaking- and I've done it before for specific players, but it yields far more intricate and precise conclusions than a cursory glance at OPS+.

All this is nice, but when all is said and done, like I asked to begin with, can someone please give me an exact figure by which to prorate McGriff's stats accordingly? It's well enough for everyone to say that he doesn't belong because hypothetically if you "adjust" this and "measure that" it will show him to be a worse hitter than Stargell and Williams. What I am simply asking for is the result. So many here seem to be so confident that after all this inflating and deflating and adjusting and factoring etc., McGriff does not measure up. SHOW ME!!!!! If Stargell has a career batting average of .270, what I want to know is what are you all seeing as McGriff's career batting average? His real average is .284. If you would like to adjust and tweak that according to ballparks, eras, teams, etc., then that's fine. I have no argument with you doing that. But if that's what you're going to do, then please tell me what McGriff's comparable batting average should be? Instead of looking at him as a .284 career hitter, should we view him as a .264 hitter, a .244 hitter, a .189 hitter? If Stargell's 475 homeruns are more impressive than McGriff's 493, then that's fine too. All I ask is that you show me how they relatively compare. If you are going to simplify the issue by saying that McGriff's totals are not as impressive, then show me what totals he should have realtively speaking to Stargell's. Should he have 450 HRs? 400? 199?

[csh19792001]

1. Is it more impressive to be 39 points above league in 1908/1968 or to be 40 points above league in 1894/1930/2000?
2. Yeah, I'd say Williams & Santo were helped with HR at least a little

1. Well, without getting into standard distributions (i.e- assuming all extraneous variables equal, such as total number of players)- I don't see why 39 points above the league average in 1908 or 68 is any more impressive/different than doing the same in 1930 or 2000. Why do you feel it is?

2. Agreed, absolutely.

[RuthMayBond]

1. Well, without getting into standard distributions (i.e- assuming all extraneous variables equal, such as total number of players)- I don't see why 39 points above the league average in 1908 or 68 is any more impressive/different than doing the same in 1930 or 2000. Why do you feel it is?I'm not sure how seriously to take your statistical knowledge. In 1968, the league BA was about .235. In 1930, the league BA was in the .290s. Forty points over .290 is not as impressive as forty points over .235.

[csh19792001]

Baseball Prospectus has "tranlated batting statistics" available. I don't know percisely how they come up with them, but I imagine it is a process similar to what Chris is talking about. It looks as though they are normalized to the year the system was made, probably near the peak of the current high offense period. Anyway...


BA OBA SA HR RBI

McGriff .289 .384 .537 572 1569
McCovey .283 .391 .562 603 1624
Stargell .292 .375 .575 559 1618
Williams .290 .367 .529 526 1555

McGriff fares better than I would have thought.

I also first looked at the translated batting stats at prospectus- but they seem arbitrarily "timeline adjusted". Does this not debase the validity/reliability of that metric? I.e.- building in something entirely suppositional, summarily turning it into a statistical fact, and then inculcating it into a mathematical formula. This is not very scientific, to say the least- and remains the folly of a stat like EqA (which otherwise seems like a very good statistic).

In other words- how can one put an exact number on how much more difficult the league was in 1994 vs. 1968, or even know for a fact that it absolutely was? Seems like an attempt to turn speculation into a statistical truism. Not everything is amenable to direct and absolute numerical analysis (if only life were that black and white); however some true die-hard SABR stat guys don't seem to understand this, however, and remain resolved to put everything into a formula.

I believe the timeline portion is why McGriff does much better than either one of us would have thought, in comparison to the players of the 60's and 70's, Mac.

[csh19792001]

I'm not sure how seriously to take your statistical knowledge. In 1968, the league BA was about .235. In 1930, the league BA was in the .290s. Forty points over .290 is not as impressive as forty points over .235.

Why? If you take your statistical knowledge very seriously and I have not, then perhaps I can learn from you. Why, for instance, is Cobb's 1909 more impressive than, say, Horsnby's 1924?

(As I said, the analysis must be with all other extraneous factors assumed equal, as you assumed them to be in your original post on this subject). If we aren't assuming those to be equal, that's a different discussion.

[cubbieinexile]

Are you not the same person who uses ERA+ and OPS+ and points over average to compare players? I think you are but I am not really sure, so I apologize now if I am confusing you with other posters.

Anyway McGriff jumps up because he played his prime just before the current hitting era. From his age 23 to age 29 season Fred hit 228 home runs. A very good number considering it the 21st most through that time period (interesting note it ties him with Strawberry). Had he started his career later BP is saying that he would have hit 273 home runs in those same age years. 45 more homers. To me that is believable.

Secondly I don't think they are making a judgement on how difficult different eras are. Nor are they saying that had player X played in 1999 he would have hit X number of homers and so forth. What they are saying is that the season Player X had in 1967 has this value in 1999. For instance .301 batting average has a value of ten in 1967 and a ten value in 1999 is .348. So if a player hits .301 in 1967 when they translate the stats to 1999 the player would have a .348 batting average. Would he really hit .348? We don't know but what the stat is trying to convey is how good or bad a player is in context that we can easily understand, since we are living and judging through modern times. What they are saying is that the .301 in 1968 had the same value and importance that hitting .348 does now. They get to these numbers by doing what you yourself have suggested which is compare players to league averages.

[mac195]

I don't know, there may be some sort of timeline adjustment involved in the calculation, but I notice that Ty Cobb hits 485 adjusted HRs, and knocks in 2353 RBIs, so it looks like dead ball guys are getting a bonus rather than a penalty.

[csh19792001]

All this is nice, but when all is said and done, like I asked to begin with, can someone please give me an exact figure by which to prorate McGriff's stats accordingly? It's well enough for everyone to say that he doesn't belong because hypothetically if you "adjust" this and "measure that" it will show him to be a worse hitter than Stargell and Williams. What I am simply asking for is the result. So many here seem to be so confident that after all this inflating and deflating and adjusting and factoring etc., McGriff does not measure up. SHOW ME!!!!! If Stargell has a career batting average of .270, what I want to know is what are you all seeing as McGriff's career batting average? His real average is .284. If you would like to adjust and tweak that according to ballparks, eras, teams, etc., then that's fine. I have no argument with you doing that. But if that's what you're going to do, then please tell me what McGriff's comparable batting average should be? Instead of looking at him as a .284 career hitter, should we view him as a .264 hitter, a .244 hitter, a .189 hitter? If Stargell's 475 homeruns are more impressive than McGriff's 493, then that's fine too. All I ask is that you show me how they relatively compare. If you are going to simplify the issue by saying that McGriff's totals are not as impressive, then show me what totals he should have realtively speaking to Stargell's. Should he have 450 HRs? 400? 199?

Commish-
You'd have to go through the steps that I listed above if you want answers to those questions; it's a long, somewhat arduous process, and I'm possessing of neither the time nor inclination to do it myself.

[cubbieinexile]

Why? If you take your statistical knowledge very seriously and I have not, then perhaps I can learn from you. Why, for instance, is Cobb's 1909 more impressive than, say, Horsnby's 1924?

(As I said, the analysis must be with all other extraneous factors assumed equal, as you assumed them to be in your original post on this subject). If we aren't assuming those to be equal, that's a different discussion.


It is more impressive because in 1909 it was harder to get a hit then it was in 1924. In 1924 there was 25% more hits, 50% more doubles, more tiples, and almost 5 times more home runs. In 1924 12 players hit .320 or better in the NL. In 1909 3 players did that in the AL.

When a stat is high it is easier to get high numbers, when a stat is low it is easier to get low numbers. For instance the worst 1909 number is 195 the worst 1924 number is .245. A point above the AL average.

[csh19792001]

I don't know, there may be some sort of timeline adjustment involved in the calculation, but I notice that Ty Cobb hits 485 adjusted HRs, and knocks in 2353 RBIs, so it looks like dead ball guys are getting a bonus rather than a penalty.

Unfortunately, I don't see an explication for the "adjusted stats" formula in question- but that was my guess as to why the rate stats of people like Billy Williams don't look better (by comparison, when taking era into account) juxtaposed against Fred McGriff.

Deadball guys shouldn't get a bonus, per se, but their adjusted power stats should look very good compared to their actual ones, especially apropos to home runs, which were almost impossible to hit in large numbers before 1920.

The extra RBI's and homers are based on the idea that the player would outperform the league to the same extent in a different context than he hit during his actual career. It probably also takes into account the 8 extra games available each year, which translates to almost 200 more games over a 24 year career.

[csh19792001]

It is more impressive because in 1909 it was harder to get a hit then it was in 1924. In 1924 there was 25% more hits, 50% more doubles, more tiples, and almost 5 times more home runs. In 1924 12 players hit .320 or better in the NL. In 1909 3 players did that in the AL.

When a stat is high it is easier to get high numbers, when a stat is low it is easier to get low numbers. For instance the worst 1909 number is 195 the worst 1924 number is .245. A point above the AL average.

I wanted to hear RMB's explanation, but in any case-

Paragraph 1- That all makes sense, and is obvious.

Paragraph 2- What's "the worst number"? What's your cutoff for games played to qualify for "worst" in BA?

As to the other point- I never said that hitting .245 in 1909 wasn't more impressive than doing it in 1924- that's clearly true. I'm not comparing equal raw seasons, but equal adjusted seasons.

What I questioned was why hitting .270 against a league average of .230 is necessarily more impressive than, say, hitting .300 against a league average of .260, with all other things being equal (and why this would hold for any stat, batting average inclusive, even looking at outliers like Hornsby in 1924 and Cobb in 1909). Or why a relative BA of 1.35 in 1908 has to be more impressive than one occuring in the year 2000.

[RuthMayBond]

Why? If you take your statistical knowledge very seriously and I have not, then perhaps I can learn from you. Why, for instance, is Cobb's 1909 more impressive than, say, Horsnby's 1924?

(As I said, the analysis must be with all other extraneous factors assumed equal, as you assumed them to be in your original post on this subject). If we aren't assuming those to be equal, that's a different discussion.Cobb's 1909 wasn't more impressive because of all the factors. Collins wasn't that far behind Cobb. No one was close to Hornsby in '24.

[RuthMayBond]

I wanted to hear RMB's explanation, but in any case-

Paragraph 1- That all makes sense, and is obvious.

Paragraph 2- What's "the worst number"? What's your cutoff for games played to qualify for "worst" in BA?

As to the other point- I never said that hitting .245 in 1909 wasn't more impressive than doing it in 1924- that's clearly true. I'm not comparing equal raw seasons, but equal adjusted seasons.

What I questioned was why hitting .270 against a league average of .230 is necessarily more impressive than, say, hitting .300 against a league average of .260, with all other things being equal (and why this would hold for any stat, batting average inclusive, even looking at outliers like Hornsby in 1924 and Cobb in 1909). Or why a relative BA of 1.35 in 1908 has to be more impressive than one occuring in the year 2000.In order to compare apples/apples you should use percents (like OPS+ does), not absolute numbers. I don't necessarily have a cutoff (although it would be for PA, not games) but I do take large differences into account. Actually a relative BA of 1.35 in 1908 is probably less impressive than in 2000 because the quality of play of the lower guys has probably improved.

[csh19792001]

Are you not the same person who uses ERA+ and OPS+ and points over average to compare players? I think you are but I am not really sure, so I apologize now if I am confusing you with other posters.

Anyway McGriff jumps up because he played his prime just before the current hitting era. From his age 23 to age 29 season Fred hit 228 home runs. A very good number considering it the 21st most through that time period (interesting note it ties him with Strawberry). Had he started his career later BP is saying that he would have hit 273 home runs in those same age years. 45 more homers. To me that is believable.

Secondly I don't think they are making a judgement on how difficult different eras are. Nor are they saying that had player X played in 1999 he would have hit X number of homers and so forth. What they are saying is that the season Player X had in 1967 has this value in 1999. For instance .301 batting average has a value of ten in 1967 and a ten value in 1999 is .348. So if a player hits .301 in 1967 when they translate the stats to 1999 the player would have a .348 batting average. Would he really hit .348? We don't know but what the stat is trying to convey is how good or bad a player is in context that we can easily understand, since we are living and judging through modern times. What they are saying is that the .301 in 1968 had the same value and importance that hitting .348 does now. They get to these numbers by doing what you yourself have suggested which is compare players to league averages.

I don't particularly like OPS+ or ERA+, because they're pure rate stats. You're thinking of another poster- perhaps ElHalo???? He's big on those. People here are generally big on OPS+, though, so I use it frequently.

I think you're right about McGriff's prime, which took place (in part), before the offensive boom of post 1993. For instance, here's McGriff before expansion (and before homers became so cheap).

http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/scomp.cgi?I=mcgrifr01:Fred+McGriff&st=int&age=28&compage=29

And by comparison, here is Bonds, who was roughly the same age and had roughly the same ML experience at that point.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/scomp.cgi?I=bondsba01:Barry+Bonds&st=int&compage=27&age=27

In 580 fewer at bats, McGriff had 15 more home runs and an OPS+ 8 points higher than Bonds, pre offensive boom era. This is a big point in favor of Crime Dog.

For some reason, I thought EqA was timeline adjusted- it may not be, and I was thinking of another stat. Does anyone have the top 10 (or 20) alltime in EqA handy? How about MLVr?

[RuthMayBond]

Are you not the same person who uses ERA+ and OPS+ and points over average to compare players? I think you are but I am not really sure, so I apologize now if I am confusing you with other posters.You didn't specify who this was for. ElHalo really loves rate stats, some love counting totals. I use ERA+ and OPS+ AND counting totals to get a better picture.

[Aegis]

Also, Bonds had more AB in '86 than McGriff did in '86 and '87 combined.

[cubbieinexile]

The smaller the range the closer the data points will be. One way to look at this would be standard deviations.

Hitting .270 in a .230 league is harder to do because the league is harder to hit in. The lower the league average is the less extreme an individual players stat will be. For instance the only .400+ hitter baseball history to play in a league below a .250 batting average was Fred Dunlap at .248, and he did it in the Union Association in 1884.

In ML history there have been 28 incidents in which a player batted .400 or better. (300 PA, incidentally for the cutoff in the last stat I used 400 PA). 18 ( and 9 of those are in the .300) of the 28 were in .290 or better environments, and the rest are in the .270's and .280's. Except for 1876 Ross Barnes at .267. If you compile a chart in which you rank the players by points seperating them from the league it has a lot of players who batted in .270 and above leagues. If you rank them by ratios it is .250's.

[csh19792001]

The smaller the range the closer the data points will be. One way to look at this would be standard deviations.


I knew SD's would come into play at some point here. Very well explained- I was thinking of outliers (and their raw difference from the pack in terms of batting average), but what you're saying is that the distribution of the individual scores is more important. That makes sense.

Is the problem of unequivalent ranges (and SD's) throughout baseball history one of the reasons why you think OPS+ and ERA+ are bad stats?

[RuthMayBond]

I knew SD's would come into play at some point here. Very well explained- I was thinking of outliers (and their raw difference from the pack in terms of batting average), but what you're saying is that the distribution of the individual scores is more important. That makes sense.

Is the problem of unequivalent ranges (and SD's) throughout baseball history one of the reasons why you think OPS+ and ERA+ are bad stats?I sure wish I knew how to calculate SD for some records that I'm rating, such as over in the Greatest Accomplishment in Baseball History thread in the History forum

[csh19792001]

Cobb's 1909 wasn't more impressive because of all the factors. Collins wasn't that far behind Cobb. No one was close to Hornsby in '24.

Yes, but we were talking about how batting averages in a league where the BA is low is MORE impressive than a BA that is equally seperated from the pack (in terms of raw BA points).

This was your original point, and I found that Cobb in 09' had a similar disparity from the league average (in a defensive context) as Horsnby did in 24' (in a strong offensive context). By your logic, Cobb's deadball seasons where he hit so high in comparison to the league are more impressive by virtue of statistical realities, correct? A relative BA of 1.35 in 1909, hence, is better than a 1.35 in 1924?

[RuthMayBond]

Yes, but we were talking about how batting averages in a league where the BA is low is MORE impressive than a BA that is equally seperated from the pack (in terms of raw BA points).

This was your original point, and I found that Cobb in 09' had a similar disparity from the league average (in a defensive context) as Horsnby did in 24' (in a strong offensive context). By your logic, Cobb's deadball seasons where he hit so high in comparison to the league are more impressive by virtue of statistical realities, correct? A relative BA of 1.35 in 1909, hence, is better than a 1.35 in 1924?If we're ONLY considering BA and NOT considering improvements in the league, then this would be correct.

[csh19792001]

I sure wish I knew how to calculate SD for some records that I'm rating, such as over in the Greatest Accomplishment in Baseball History thread in the History forum

That's a great idea. I have a good book by Throndike et al here on Measurement and Statistics, but I can't recreate the formulae here graphically.

Here are a few links that might help- http://davidmlane.com/hyperstat/A16252.html
http://www.gcseguide.co.uk/standard_deviation.htm

Basically, with SD you're calculating the average variance from the mean.
You take each raw score along the normal curve, square it, divide it by the total number of scores, and subtract the mean (squared).

[cubbieinexile]

All you really need to figure out SD is a spreadsheet and a database. Most computers have the spreadsheet and the databases are available on line. Just input the database into the spreadsheet and look for the SD link in the formula section of the spreadsheet. Both Excel and Quattro have SD buttons.

The biggest problems I have with ERA+ and OPS+ or for that matter any + stat. Is the park factor and quality of league. I do not/will not assume that league wide and team average throughout a season can accurately reflect an individuals accomplishments on a at bat by at bat and game by game level. Just too many variables to just assume it is accurate. The second problem is the quality. 1890's ball is not on the same level as 1970's ball. 1961 ball is not on the same level as 1989 ball. Nor is it guaranteed that a hitter/pitcher will actually play it the way the ratio expects. Meaning if 5% of a teams games are against Atlanta then 5% of the players games will be against Atlanta.

A good example I came across is with the 60's Dodgers. It found that Koufax game split was pretty equal while Drysdale had more Road games by a good margin then home games. Thus Drysdale has the higher overall ERA and then gets the shaft in terms of ERA+ because it assumes that he played half his game at Dodger stadium.

[The Commissioner]

Commish-
You'd have to go through the steps that I listed above if you want answers to those questions; it's a long, somewhat arduous process, and I'm possessing of neither the time nor inclination to do it myself.

Then all I'm saying, is if this is such a long arduous process to calculate, how can so many of you be so absolutely sure that Mcgriff's numbers, and career, don't measure up? Shouldn't this process be delved into before such a summary judgment is passed down? A lot of people seem very quick on the trigger when it comes to dismissing his numbers, but very slow on the draw when it comes to showing why. You can't just tell me that 493, .284, and 1550 aren't what they seem without letting us in on what they actually are.

[ElHalo]

I sure wish I knew how to calculate SD for some records that I'm rating, such as over in the Greatest Accomplishment in Baseball History thread in the History forum

Very simple way to calculate a rough estimate of SD for a normal distribution pattern (note that this only works for normal distribution patterns, and won't work for skewed distribution patterns):

Take the whole set of numbers (i.e., if you're finding standard deviation for player batting averages in a year, take a list of every BA put up by every player in the league who played that year). Throw out the bottom 2.5% and the top 2.5% of the numbers.

Take the highest number on the list, and subtract the lowest number on the list. Take that number that you get, and divide by four.

This will give you a very rough estimate of the standard deviation without doing a whole lot of complicated math. It's a backwards way of getting the SD (by using the statistical probability that 95% of all member numbers in a normal distribution pattern will be within two standard deviations of the mean), but it should work in general.

[ballparks]

McGriff .284 BA, .509 Slg, 2490 hits, 493 HR, 1550 RBI
McCovey .270 BA, .509 Slg, 2211 hits, 521 HR, 1555 RBI
Stargell .270 BA, .515 Slg, 2282 hits, 475 HR, 1540 RBI
Billy Williams .290 BA, .492 Slg, 2711 hits, 426 HR, 1475 RBI
Matthews .271 BA, .509 Slg, 2315 hits, 512 HR, 1453 RBI
Banks .274 BA, .500 Slg, 2583 hits, 512 HR, 1636 RBI

Comparing McGriff's HR today to the counter stats of these hall of famers is apples to oranges. McGriff was a good player, not a great player. He ought to get into the hall like the rest of us- buy a ticket.

[Sashag]

I remember watching something like "Outside the Lines," and they discussed this and one of the things that they mentioned was that McGriff is going to be a "test case" for the other players that have stats like his, but aren't quiet up to the "standard" HOF numbers. For example, he has not gotten to 3,000 hits, doesn't have 500 HR's and has a Batting Average below .300.

To me he was a very good player, but he is not a Hall of Famer. Again, his could be a test case. -Sasha

[The Commissioner]

McGriff .284 BA, .509 Slg, 2490 hits, 493 HR, 1550 RBI
McCovey .270 BA, .509 Slg, 2211 hits, 521 HR, 1555 RBI
Stargell .270 BA, .515 Slg, 2282 hits, 475 HR, 1540 RBI
Billy Williams .290 BA, .492 Slg, 2711 hits, 426 HR, 1475 RBI
Matthews .271 BA, .509 Slg, 2315 hits, 512 HR, 1453 RBI
Banks .274 BA, .500 Slg, 2583 hits, 512 HR, 1636 RBI

Comparing McGriff's HR today to the counter stats of these hall of famers is apples to oranges. McGriff was a good player, not a great player. He ought to get into the hall like the rest of us- buy a ticket.

That's easy enough to say, but then tell me exactly what made them "great" players and McGriff simply "good"?

[cubbieinexile]

I would Eddie Mathews was great because he was at the time the greatest thirdbasemen of all time. Can McGriff ever lay claim to that? I would say Ernie Banks was great because at the time he was probably the second greatest SS of all time and was doing things no SS ever did. Can Mcgriff ever say that?

Not a big fan of Williams or Stargell HOF entrance. Though I guess Willie got in because he was the leader of a great team. Not much of a reason that I know for Williams.

McCovey was great because he had a stretch where he was in all probability the best hitter in the game. Again can Fred say that?

[ElHalo]

That's easy enough to say, but then tell me exactly what made them "great" players and McGriff simply "good"?

Mathews is great because he played 3B. Banks is great because he played SS. The others aren't great by any possible definition of the term.

[Brad Harris]

By the time McGriff becomes eligible - in 2010 if he retires now - his case for the Hall of Fame will rest on how he stacks up against those first basemen already enshrined. Here's the list as it stands today:

Cap Anson
Jake Beckley
Jim Bottomley
Dan Brouthers
Orlando Cepeda
Frank Chance
Roger Connor
Jimmie Foxx
Lou Gehrig
Hank Greenberg
George Kelly
Harmon Killebrew
Buck Leonard
Willie McCovey
Johnny Mize
Eddie Murray
Tony Perez
George Sisler
Bill Terry

The only first basemen with any chance of getting elected between now and then are Will Clark, Steve Garvey, Mark Grace, Don Mattingly and Mark McGwire. The only sure bet among those to make it in is McGwire, which means that the most likely scenario is that McGriff will have to justify his presence among the (then) 20 first basemen in the Hall of Fame.

McGriff is a better candidate, in my opinon, than a third of those men.

His OPS was 34% above league average for more than 10,000 plate appearances over 19 seasons. That's Hall of Fame material to me.

[cubbieinexile]

HIs OPS was not 34% better then the league. OPS+ at least on BB-Ref is not a percentage number. OPS+ is figured by looking at how much better in terms of percentage a player is from league OBP and SLG seperately then those two numbers are combined. In actuality McGriff's OPS is 17.5% better then league average with park factor figured in.

[ElHalo]

Of the 1Bmen in the Hall, I'd put McGriff ahead of only Kelly, Cepeda, and Perez. I really can't see how he should belong.

[Naliamegod]

That's easy enough to say, but then tell me exactly what made them "great" players and McGriff simply "good"?

McCovey was one of the most feared sluggers in all of baseball and lead the league in OPS for 3 straight years, Fred never did it once.

[STLCards2]

After considering what we know now (or what we don't know, but assume) about steroids the past 15 years, how do The Crime Dog and his mostly pre-steroid era stats look now, in respect to Cooperstown?

I think he is deserving, but I like longevity and consistency. Others here will not like his lack of "dominance." Any thoughts?

[The Dude]

It seems people forget that McGriff was one of the top players of the late 80's and early-mid 90's. He led the league twice in HR"s, and finished in the top 5 , five more times. Runs, Hits, HR's, RBI's, SLG, OBP, OPS. He was in the top 10 in a lot of categories. His walk totals dropped as soon as the home run craze took over, but he rebounded with some nice years in Tampa. Throwing aside the inflated numbers and the steroids, McGriff would have looked even better.

Canseco, and admitted steroid user, and McGwire who shys away from the subject and refuses to answer questions:
1988-Only person to beat McGriff in HR's is Canseco
1990-Canseo beats McGriff. McGwire beats McGriff. Fielder wins.

[futurehalloffamer]

I would love to see the Crime Dog get in, but he retired just a dollar short with 493 HRs, and he didn't do much spectacular.

[Mariano Rivera]

I don't believe that Fred McGriff ever announced his retirement from baseball and also I can not believe no team in baseball would pick this guy up to hit seven more homers for 500. I know McGriff is 41 years of age, but I bet if he played one more full season he could hit 10 to 15 more homers for his career and have over 2,500 hits. :clapping

[cubbieinexile]

Yeah and that team would have a nice big sinkhole at first base/DH/PH.

[abolishthedh]

I vote yes, because the majority of his prime years were before 1993 when the offensive explosion began, IMHO.

To date, here's a rough total of how we've voted. I had to reread the thread, and it may not be accurate, but here's a rough picture.

Yes, HoF for McGriff (including mine): 9
No Hof For McGriff (varied reasons): 10

By the tone of the discussion, those posters against McGriff have seemed more impassioned than those supporting him. A couple of posters supporters seem to support him out of sentiment.

McGriff will be a test case, much like Juan Gonzalez will be a test case if and when Juan Gone reaches 500 HR. Over time, say in 10 years, we'll know. In the end, it will be more political than statistical. Since McGriff was an agreeable guy with the media, this factor will bode well for him.

[abacab]

McGriff sits right on the borderline in my opinion. Chancellor said that he would be better than a third of HoF first baseman, but personally I would go with maybe a quarter of them:

McGriff was definitely better than: Kelly, Bottomley, Beckley, Chance*
McGriff was about equal to: Terry*, Perez, Cepeda

* - Terry and Chance had accomplishments as managers to bolster their HoF resumes.

So McGriff was better than 4-7 HoF first basemen, putting him on the border. I vote a tentative "no" in the interest of upholding high standards for the Hall of Fame. It wouldn't bother me at all if he got elected, though.

However, I can't see that happening for two reasons. McGriff peaked early then had a long decline phase, and HoF voters tend to be unkind to the early peaks - whereas they are very kind to late bloomers (Molitor, Eckersley). McGriff's peak also came before the HR explosion of the mid-late '90s. At a glance, this creates the illusion that he had no peak at all, and we all know how good the average HoF voter is at making era adjustments.

[WhiteSoxSteve]

What does everyone think about the crime dog in the hall? After all, he is only 7 home runs short of 500 and has over 1500 RBI's. He is another one of those guys who was consistent for a long period of time but never had that outstanding year. Here are his stats from Baseball-reference.com.

McGriff (http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mcgrifr01.shtml)

[four tool]

I don't see Crime Dog for the hall--I think there are too many in the hall as it is.

And I am glad Jim Rice did not make it.

[abacab]

I'd rather McGriff didn't make it, but I wouldn't complain if he got in. He is similar to some of the weaker HoF first basemen, like Tony Perez.

[Brad Harris]

Fred McGriff was a great player, an underrated first baseman, and a deserving Hall of Famer.

In 10,174 plate appearances, McGriff batted .284/.377/.509, collecting 441 doubles, 493 home runs, driving in 1,550 runners and scoring 1,349 runs himself. McGriff certainly would have passed the 500 home run mark had the 1994-95 strike not wiped out 66 of his team's games. (He missed only a single game between those seasons and was named the All-Star Game MVP just a month before the strike began.)

In 19 seasons, from 1986-2004, McGriff averaged 32 home runs and 102 RBI per 162 games played.

McGriff was a solid post-season performer, batting .303/.385/.532, including a 19-hit, 12-RBI, 14-run performance over 16 games in the 1995 playoffs, leading Atlanta to its only World Championship to date. In all, McGriff hit 10 home runs and drove in 37 runners in 50 post-season games for the Blue Jays and Braves, helping his teams win 5 division titles, 2 pennants and a World Championship.

The 5-time all-star represented the National League for San Diego and Atlanta 4 times from 1992-96, before representing the Junior Circuit in 2000. He won silver slugger awards at first base in 1989, 1992 and 1993. Having been around now for 26 years, the award has only been won more times by a first baseman just once, by Todd Helton (2000-2003).

McGriff received MVP votes for 8 consecutive years (1988-95), finishing in the top ten in six of them (1989-94). Though "Crime Dog's" black/gray ink scores are somewhat low (9/105), this may reflect the quality of competition among hitters of his era. His HOF Standards score is an excellent 47.9 and his HOF Monitor score puts him as a likely Hall-of-Famer, at 100.

Using similarity scores, McGriff's best comps are McCovey (889), Stargell (876), Bagwell (865), Galarraga (851), Billy Williams (850), Sheffield (842), Griffey Sr. (829), Eddie Mathews (827), Chili Davis (824) and Thomas (819) with 4 already in the Hall of Fame and another 3 likely to join them. None of them are truly similar, however, another good sign for McGriff.

From 1988-96, over a 9-year period, Fred McGriff created more runs (RCAP) than any other first baseman save future Hall-of-Famer Frank Thomas. In fact, the career RCAP (Runs Created Above Position) leaders at first base from 1980-2002 are Frank Thomas, Jeff Bagwell, Mark McGwire, Will Clark and Fred McGriff, in that order.

McGriff earned 342 win shares in his career, a total which puts him in company of many deserving Hall-of-Famers.

McGriff was a consistently excellent hitter for most of his career. During his prime, he was a major reason his teams won, as he got older, he put together some solid seasons for crappier teams (Devil Rays, Cubs, Dodgers) and was largely overshadowed by the first basemen who succeeded him among the league's best.

Among first basemen of the past quarter century, I'd rank McGriff 4th, behind Bagwell, Murray and Thomas. McGwire and Palmeiro have the cloud of steroid allegations hanging over their head. This truly is an era of great first basemen. Who knows what place Delgado, Thome, Helton or Pujols will hold when they hang up their spikes? All we can evaluate is what has happened, and among retired first basemen, McGriff will hold a strong claim as the best one available when his turn comes (2010 BBWAA Election?)

With Tony Perez and Orlando Cepeda as "average" Hall-of-Fame first basemen, I have to say that Fred McGriff far exceeds the minimum standards for players at his position. Give "Crime Dog" a plaque.

[RuthMayBond]

I don't see Crime Dog for the hall
Well, he's better than Perez, Cepeda, Beckley, Terry, Sisler, Bottomley, Chance, and GKelly.

[leecemark]

--Are Cepeda are Perez really the "average Hall of Fame firstbasemen" ? There are 19 firstbasemen in the Hall and 11 (Anson, Brouthers, Conner, Foxx, Gehrig, Greenberg, Killebrew, Leonard, McCovey, Mize and Murray) are clearly better than Perez or Cepeda. Of the rest, George Sisler had the higher peak and is held in much higher regard by most (although Perez, Cepeda and McGriff all probably had better careers). The same probably applies to Bill Terry. McGriff is comparable to Cepeda/Perez and better than Beckley, Bottomley, possibly Chance (I have a hard time placing him) and easily Kelly. On the other hand, there are quite a few firstbasemen better than than bottom rung of Hallof Fame 1Bs. Cooperstown doesn't need all of them.
--Fred McGriff surely is not a slam dunk choice for the Hall, but he is probably a better candidate than most are likely to give him credit for. He gets lumped with the home run derby crowd of the 90s, but his career was half over before the era of cheap HR got started. He was one of the league's best sluggers when 30 HR still represented serious power and his 500 (or near 500) is more impressive than that number is/will be for guys who got the bulk of their collection in the last dozen years.

[cavalier1968]

No way for the crime dog.....good for years but never great.....

Cav

[Pine Tar]

No way for the crime dog.....good for years but never great.....

Cav
McGrif was a consitently great player in his prime.

He was in the top 5 in adjusted OPS+ six of seven years from 1988-1994. The other year he was 7th.

During that same period, he was in the top four in home runs every year.

If that isn't a great peak then we really have lost our minds. I mean the only player who was better during that same time period was Barry Bonds.

[four tool]

Short peak. just because he';s better than the worst iB in the hall doesn't make him worthy. Why compoumd errors instead of saying enough is enough.

All the arguments for McGriff work for Jim Rice also

[The Commissioner]

McGriff should definitely be a Hall of Famer. The main problem with him as a Hall of Famer appears to be more due to his image than what he actually accomplished on the field. I would venture to say that this mostly due to his laid back quiet demeanor and the fact that he played for so many teams. Had he played his entire career in one uniform, perhaps the fans would have embraced him more and it would become more evident that he produced at such a great rate consistently year after year. Hypothetically had he come up with the Braves and been on TBS for 19 seasons, with the same exact stats, would anyone be questioning his Hall crededentials? Is he Lou Gehrig or Jimmie Foxx calibre? Definitely not. However, he doesn't need to be the greatest first baseman ever, just great enough for the Hall of Fame.

[RuthMayBond]

--McGriff is comparable to Cepeda/Perez and better than Beckley, Bottomley, possibly Chance (I have a hard time placing him) McGriff had basically the same OPS+ as Chance . . .
. . . and basicallyTWICE the plate apps.
Although the same is true of Morgan/Jackie Robinson and many will tell you Jackie was better

[Brad Harris]

Of course there are still people alive who are capable of telling us about their having seen Robinson play. I doubt anyone who saw Chance on the field is still around today.

[RuthMayBond]

Of course there are still people alive who are capable of telling us about their having seen Robinson play.Providing that the memory and judgment and Brooklyn bias are clear after fifty years (do you really believe Billy Cox was the best defensive 3B EVER?

[futurehalloffamer]

Did you know McGriff's 1987 Topps Traded rookie card only books for 60 cents?

[The Commissioner]

Did you know McGriff's 1987 Topps Traded rookie card only books for 60 cents?

That alone should probably disqualify him.

[Edgartohof]

During that same period, he was in the top four in home runs every year.
.

Not to mention that he led twice during that time. Also, what would have been his biggest HR year was in '94, when he had 34 (but in only 113 games). That was his best year, but was seriously hurt by the strike. His HR totals had been increasing for the last 3 seasons (31, 34, 37), and his 34 in those 113 games, would have been 45 in 150 games - which would give him a career high, and would put him over 500 for his career I might add. It would also give him another 100 Run year, and possibly 120+ RBI in that year. But he was hurt by that. He was never the flashiest player, nor the best, but he was a good player, and a good person - on and off the field. I say he's good enough to go in, but wouldn't be disappointed either way.

[SABR Matt]

I liked Crime Dog...but...nah...e hit for some power but didn't get on base like a lot of the other sluggers, and he was a pretty lame fielder...he's just outside my top 20 first basemen all time...

[Pine Tar]

I liked Crime Dog...but...nah...e hit for some power but didn't get on base like a lot of the other sluggers, and he was a pretty lame fielder...he's just outside my top 20 first basemen all time...
He didn't get on base a lot?????:noidea
His lifetime OBP is .377!
Its better than McCovey, Stargell, Billy Williams, Eddie Matthews, Reggie Jackson, Orlando Cepeda, Harmon Killebrew, Dave Winfield, Tony Perez, Eddie Murray, Al Kaline....
Shall I go on? What is your HOF standard for first basemen getting on base? Not every player can be Lou Gehrig. Geez:noidea

[Baseball Guru]

Lets see career #'s with MLB rankings in history:

.509 slugging %-(74th)
.886 OPS (75th)
1349 runs (91st)
2490 hits (83rd)
4458 total bases (39th)
441 doubles (85th)
493 hr's (21st)
1150 rbi's (35th)
1305 walks (35th)
1689 runs created (36th)
958 extra base hits (33rd)
3834 times on base (46th)


6 times in the top 10 MVP.. The guy never had a 40 hr season but avg 32 in a 162 game avg.

He was a model of consistency during his career... Besides his 1st full season he never hit under .269 and never hit over .318.. He just seemed like that player that you always knew what you were going to get from him year in and year out and he maintained that success for a long period of time...

By the way, is he actually "officially" retired?

[Edgartohof]

The guy never had a 40 hr season

He would have in '94 if it were not for the strike.

[Cougar]

McGriff is a solid HOFer. The weight of the evidence is clearly in his favor. Penalizing him for missing the 500 HR pedestal by seven is painfully crabbed and misguided thinking.

To exclude McGriff is to completely abandon the standards for the HOF established over the lifetime of the institution.

[four tool]

Sorry but I don't think the hall really has standards.

Too many are in who are marginal or should not be in and many who meet the same criteria are out. What's the HR standard? Anything about Kingman?

If it is, then McGriff certainly belongs by that standard, but so does everyone else with that many HRs.

[Pine Tar]

Sorry but I don't think the hall really has standards.

Too many are in who are marginal or should not be in and many who meet the same criteria are out. What's the HR standard? Anything about Kingman?

If it is, then McGriff certainly belongs by that standard, but so does everyone else with that many HRs.
No one has said that McGRiff belong because he has 493 home runs. THe only thing that has been said that is remotely close to what you are saying is that McGriff shouldn't be kept out just because he didn't get 500 home runs.
Kingman is not being kept out just because he didn't hit 500 home runs. He is being kept out because all he did was hit home runs. That is not true for McGRiff.

I have yet to hear a real argument against McGriff based on his stats. All I have heard is that he shouldn't go to the hall because the hall is too full. That argument doesn't really add much to the discussion about McGRiff's worthiness.

[The Commissioner]

Sorry but I don't think the hall really has standards.

Too many are in who are marginal or should not be in and many who meet the same criteria are out. What's the HR standard? Anything about Kingman?

If it is, then McGriff certainly belongs by that standard, but so does everyone else with that many HRs.


If Kingman had a career batting average anywhere close to McGriff's he would also be considered a Hall of Famer.

[DoubleX]

McGriff probably played in the wrong era. A decade earlier, and he'd be a shoe-in.

[four tool]

So what are the standards we are using to judge weather a player is hall worthy?

I don't see McGriff because I don't think very good or a high level is BY ITSELF enough--I want real superiority.
If the arguments apply to McGriff, they also apply to Juan Gonzalez, Palmiero, and Jim Rice to name a few. Are they all worthy in the eyes of those who say McGriff is? If some are and some are not, please give criteria that can be applied to a whole type or class of player.
I still don't know of any objective standards that can be applied rationally. That is, I haven't seen a set of standards which I can then take and say, well by these standards, McGriff is yes, Rice is no (or yes) and so and so is marginal.

[jalbright]

I look at several factors, and McGriff's candidacy has some problems, which, depending on your outlook may or may not be overcome. There are about 140 position players from the majors in Cooperstown, so that's one standard. If a guy isn't in the top 20 at his position (unless he's a pitcher), that's an indication he probably doesn't belong.

Fred's career win share total of 342 (I believe) and his HOF standards score of 48 are over those marks, so those are positives. However, his black ink (league leaderships) leaves him 237th all-time, and his gray ink (top 10 finishes) leave him 199th all-time. His 83 win share total in his best three seasons places him 29th among 1B in the latest Bill James Historical Abstract, and his best 5 consecutive season total in win shares of 132 is 22nd in that same group. He's 147th in MVP award shares, which is close to where he needs to be, but short again. Actually, I'd like to see higher marks in MVP shares since the MVP voting in McGriff's day favored his type of player (RBI guy, in terms of the voting) over say a good hitting shortstop with a Gold Glove. To me, he's justthisclose to making it, but not quite there.

Jim Albright

[Pine Tar]

So what are the standards we are using to judge weather a player is hall worthy?

I don't see McGriff because I don't think very good or a high level is BY ITSELF enough--I want real superiority.
If the arguments apply to McGriff, they also apply to Juan Gonzalez, Palmiero, and Jim Rice to name a few. Are they all worthy in the eyes of those who say McGriff is? If some are and some are not, please give criteria that can be applied to a whole type or class of player.
I still don't know of any objective standards that can be applied rationally. That is, I haven't seen a set of standards which I can then take and say, well by these standards, McGriff is yes, Rice is no (or yes) and so and so is marginal.
Of course the argument for McGriff applies to Gonzalez, Palmeiro, and Jim RIce. In fact any argument applies to all people.

There are many indications that show that McGriff is more hall worthy than those that you mentioned. Jim Rice, for one, had a similar peak to McGriff, but McGRiff has over 100 more career home runs, and a much better OB%.

McGriff's peak was better and longer than Juan Gonzalez. Juan was only in the top 10 in park adjusted OPS+ 4 times (and was only in the top 5 once), while McGriff was in the top 5 six times and top 10 seven times. MCGriff also has significantly better career numbers with over 500 more hits, 60 more home runs, and a much better OB%.

As for Palmeiro, if not for steroids his numbers would definetely get him in to the Hall. So if you are saying that his numbers alone, without the steroid controvery, are not worthy of the hall than I don't think I should be spending this much time trying to convince you of McGriff's worthiness. I mean the guy has 3000 hits, 569 home runs, and over 1800 RBIs.

[Pine Tar]

He's 147th in MVP award shares, which is close to where he needs to be, but short again. Actually, I'd like to see higher marks in MVP shares since the MVP voting in McGriff's day favored his type of player (RBI guy, in terms of the voting) over say a good hitting shortstop with a Gold Glove. Jim Albright
MVP voting certainly doesn't favor players in San Diego and Toronto, where McGriff's MVP type seasons were played.

[four tool]

Whether a player reaches the top twenty needs to be looked at as soon as the player retires before others move up.
Using a benchmark like top twenty all time is something worth looking at. It gets beyond counting numbers and gives perspective.
I admit the cases for McGriff and Palmiero are very good. I agree about Rice not being worthy.

[Baseball Guru]

Of course the argument for McGriff applies to Gonzalez, Palmeiro, and Jim RIce. In fact any argument applies to all people.

There are many indications that show that McGriff is more hall worthy than those that you mentioned. Jim Rice, for one, had a similar peak to McGriff, but McGRiff has over 100 more career home runs, and a much better OB%.

McGriff's peak was better and longer than Juan Gonzalez. Juan was only in the top 10 in park adjusted OPS+ 4 times (and was only in the top 5 once), while McGriff was in the top 5 six times and top 10 seven times. MCGriff also has significantly better career numbers with over 500 more hits, 60 more home

Good points.. I also think you have to look at his position.. Rice and Gonzo were OF'ers, a position expected to put up good power #'s..

How many 1B that are in Hall have better power #'s than McGriff?
Gehrig, Greenberg, Murray, Killebrew, and McCovey are the only ones that come immediately to mind...

There are a few in there that McGriff is better than like Perez, Cepeda and Chance to name a few....

[KCGHOST]

To drag Kingman in to a conversation about McGriff's worthiness is an insult to McGriff. There is no rational argument for Kingman, while McGriff is a serious candidate. His real problem is that he was conistently good for a very long time, but failed to reach any of the magic milestones. Players like that always have issues in getting into the HoF.

I have no problem with his candidacy one way or the other. If he gets in fine - if he doesn't fine.

BTW, to say he was better than Eddie Mathews is patently absurd. Mathews produced more, in harder to produce era, while supplying real defensive value.

[jalbright]

MVP voting certainly doesn't favor players in San Diego and Toronto, where McGriff's MVP type seasons were played.

True, but the point is that MVP voting, especially in McGriff's day didn't help the middle infielders and catchers who also belong in the HOF. That being the case, 147th in that standard for a OF/1B/DH is clearly an indication he does not belong rather than an indication he does.

Jim Albright

[Pine Tar]

True, but the point is that MVP voting, especially in McGriff's day didn't help the middle infielders and catchers who also belong in the HOF. That being the case, 147th in that standard for a OF/1B/DH is clearly an indication he does not belong rather than an indication he does.

Jim Albright
That seems like a pretty dogmatic Hall standard to have and I don't think it CLEARY shows anything.

Also, how is it that you think that during McGriff's day OF and 1B were more likely than today to receive MVP votes? I looked and in the NL, if you remove the Barry Bonds factor, during McGriff's everyday playing days 5/10 MVPs went to 3B, SS, or 2B, while only one went to a 1B (Bagwell).

Certainly in the AL a lot more MVPs went to 1B with Frank Thomas (twice), Giambi, and Mo Vaughn all winning but a SS also won during that time (Ripken).

You talk as if there has been some trend in baseball with SS and catchers being more recognized by MVP voters more recently as if Dick Groat never one an MVP, or Nellie Fox, or Phil RIzzuto, or Ernie Banks, or Ken Boyer, or Munson, or Mike Schmidt, or George Brett.

Also, compare McGRiff's MVP totals to 1B of HIS generation and he compares well. His MVP total is better than Jim Thome (196), Rafael Palmeiro (187), Carlos Delgado (161), and Andres Gallarraga (152).

Finally, how should we account for the fact that 12 pitchers have more MVP totals than McGriff? It seems to me that you would subtract them from the list if you are interested in the top 140 position players, which would put McGriff in 135th place.

[jalbright]

It's one indicator out of seven--but I stand by what I said about that one indicator. The problem isn't just that one, but also that his peak win shares aren't up to snuff for a HOF 1B (two indicators), and his black and gray ink (2 more indicators) aren't what one would expect for a HOF 1B. That's five of seven indicators lining up against Fred. The other two indicators (career win shares and HOF standards) are positive--but just not enough to outweigh the negatives presented by the five negative ones IMO.

OK, drop those 12 pitchers--how many guys from positions other than 1B and OF are there? Too many, I'll bet. There shouldn't be more than 80-90 MLB OF and 1B qualifying, and I'll bet McGriff isn't in the top 80 or 90 OF/1B/DH. The fact some other modern first basemen aren't measuring up doesn't help McGriff's case--lots and lots of guys don't make the HOF--besides, you're leaving out Bagwell, Thomas and McGwire, all of whom are rather contemporary to McGriff and beat him in that measure.

Also, before McGriff's day, middle infielders and catchers did get MVPs--but darned few have since 1980. Yet I think it logical to expect at least half a dozen to ten guys from those three positions alone since 1980--and I wonder whether that many have surpassed McGriff's MVP award share total. That's the point I'm trying to make, not the straw man you manufacture and then conveniently beat up. Another way of talking about the same point is there should be 45-60 2B/SS/C in the HOF, and again I doubt there are that many who beat McGriff's MVP award shares--also, you can adjust somewhat for those who make it before MVP voting started, but you'd also have to adjust for the OF/1B who made it as well. That being the case, McGriff's 135th place among position players in that measure just isn't good enough. No one measure does the trick, but if one is negative, it has to be overcome by sufficient positives. McGriff, as I said, has five negatives and two positives, and the two positives aren't enough to outweigh the negatives IMO.

Jim Albright

[Pine Tar]

It's one indicator out of seven--but I stand by what I said about that one indicator. The problem isn't just that one, but also that his peak win shares aren't up to snuff for a HOF 1B (two indicators), and his black and gray ink (2 more indicators) aren't what one would expect for a HOF 1B. That's five of seven indicators lining up against Fred. The other two indicators (career win shares and HOF standards) are positive--but just not enough to outweigh the negatives presented by the five negative ones IMO.

OK, drop those 12 pitchers--how many guys from positions other than 1B and OF are there? Too many, I'll bet. There shouldn't be more than 80-90 MLB OF and 1B qualifying, and I'll bet McGriff isn't in the top 80 or 90 OF/1B/DH. The fact some other modern first basemen aren't measuring up doesn't help McGriff's case--lots and lots of guys don't make the HOF--besides, you're leaving out Bagwell, Thomas and McGwire, all of whom are rather contemporary to McGriff and beat him in that measure.

Also, before McGriff's day, middle infielders and catchers did get MVPs--but darned few have since 1980. Yet I think it logical to expect at least half a dozen to ten guys from those three positions alone since 1980--and I wonder whether that many have surpassed McGriff's MVP award share total. That's the point I'm trying to make, not the straw man you manufacture and then conveniently beat up. Another way of talking about the same point is there should be 45-60 2B/SS/C in the HOF, and again I doubt there are that many who beat McGriff's MVP award shares--also, you can adjust somewhat for those who make it before MVP voting started, but you'd also have to adjust for the OF/1B who made it as well. That being the case, McGriff's 135th place among position players in that measure just isn't good enough. No one measure does the trick, but if one is negative, it has to be overcome by sufficient positives. McGriff, as I said, has five negatives and two positives, and the two positives aren't enough to outweigh the negatives IMO.

Jim Albright

5 of YOUR 7 hall indicators show him outside the hall. His career OPS* of 137 is a lot better than most 1B in the hall. His career HR total is 23rd best all-time. He has over 1500 RBI (a number a lot of hall voters care about). His career OBP is .377, also better than most 1B in the hall. His BA of .287 is also a "Hall worthy" average. So that is 5 more positives, which makes a total of 7/12 positves if we include them with those that you picked.

Also, for someone who seems so statistically inclined, I'm surprised that you put so much stock in MVPs, and black and grey ink scores. I mean they certainly have value, but they are all biased due to park factors and how much someone walks (in the case of the grey and black inks ), and the size of the market and popularity (in the case of MVP voting). The more objective measure of adjusted OPS+ (both peak and career) CLEARLY shows McGriff to be hall worthy.

[jalbright]

Cut it however you will--you certainly like to argue, even willing to throw out unadjusted stats like BA, RBI and OBP and then, in the very same post, criticize my use of unadjusted stats. I use those seven standards I listed, and they say what they say. Even your exhaustively researched seven out of twelve isn't exactly slam dunk territory. McGriff is at best in the gray area. I say he's on the outside looking in, you feel differently. So be it. Let a BBF poll and/or the BBWAA decide.

Jim Albright

[jalbright]

5 of YOUR 7 hall indicators show him outside the hall. His career OPS* of 137 is a lot better than most 1B in the hall. His career HR total is 23rd best all-time. He has over 1500 RBI (a number a lot of hall voters care about). His career OBP is .377, also better than most 1B in the hall. His BA of .287 is also a "Hall worthy" average. So that is 5 more positives, which makes a total of 7/12 positves if we include them with those that you picked.

To start, it would be nice if you were in fact accurate. According to baseball-reference.com, his career average is .284, not .287, and his OPS+ is 134, not 137.:lookitup On top of that, that average is 27 points below the 100th mark, which makes it highly unlikely that said mark is in and of itself a HOF caliber mark. His OBP has got to be close to or below the borderline as well, falling 13 points below the 100th best mark. His OPS+ is probably inside the line, being 3 points below the 100th mark. So three of your additional five are shaky at best. The other two are in traditional HOF territory.

Jim Albright

[Pine Tar]

you certainly like to argue, even willing to throw out unadjusted stats like BA, RBI and OBP and then, in the very same post, criticize my use of unadjusted stats.
You really like to read parts of my posts and ignore the parts that dont fit your point. I critisized your statistics and certainly there are ciritsisms of the unadjusteed stats I mentioned, but what I said was that the less biased statistic of OPS+ CLEARLY shows McGRiff to be a HOFer. SO WE SHOULD PUT MORE STOCK IN THAT STATISTIC THAN OTHERS LIKE MVP SHARES, BA, INK SHARES, ALL-STAR GAMES, OR ANYTHING ELSE YOU CARE TO BRING TO BEAR ON THE ARGUMENT.

To start, it would be nice if you were in fact accurate. I got tired of researching things for you. I am glad you finally looked up something about McGriff, and the differences are totally inconsequential to my argument.

that average is 27 points below the 100th mark, which makes it highly unlikely that said mark is in and of itself a HOF caliber markHis OBP has got to be close to or below the borderline as well, falling 13 points below the 100th best mark. His OPS+ is probably inside the line, being 3 points below the 100th mark. So three of your additional five are shaky at best. The other two are in traditional HOF territory
I really think you should be abandoning this univariate analysis of hall worthniess based on SINGLE statistics not in relation to each other. I bring up batting average and OBP because they are hall WORTHY not in themselves but for a HOME RUN hitter (slugging % 74th all-time). That is why adjusted OPS+ is such an important statistic, it is calculated from OBP% and slugging%.

You mention that McGriff is outside the top 100 in this as well but the top 100 also includes several current players who have not finished their careers (and their decline years), and former players who had abrupt careers. To compare McGriff to them isn't a fair comparison.

A lot of home run hitters sacrifice their batting averages and/or OBP to hit more home runs. Someone mentioned Dave Kingman earlier who is an extreme case of this, but it is also true for Dale Murphy, Juan Gonzalez, Sammy Sosa, and Jose Canseco among others. Its the one thing that is most often mentioned as the reason why Dale Murphy and Juan Gonzalez are not hall worthy. McGriff does not have this problem.

His slugging% is solidly in the top 100 all time, AND his OBP% is very respectable. Combine these with a 7 year peak where he was consistently in the tops 5 in adjusted OPS+ and the longevity of his career in that he has over 1500 RBIs and nearly 500 home runs and there really should not be any doubt of his worthiness. Any one of these by themselves does not indicate a hall worthy person. In combination they do. Of course though, I place the most weight on adjusted OPS+ and the length of the career. The other numbers will be there is these numbers are there.

To deny him would be to completely rewrite the standards that have been guiding elections for the hall. If that is what people want to argue than that is fine to do, but then its not McGriff's worthiness that should be debated, but instead the hall's policies.

[jalbright]

The truth is, no matter how I choose to express my opinion, you will attack it if it happens to disagree with your preconceptions. That being the case, I see no point in trying to do so in more depth. Suffice it to say, I look at many issues and try to combine them in my own fashion. In any event, McGriff is not a slam dunk choice, and I happen to believe there is a reasonable basis for excluding him. You happen to disagree. I will give your opinion the respect you at best begrudgingly seem to give to mine.

Jim Albright

[Pine Tar]

The truth is, no matter how I choose to express my opinion, you will attack it if it happens to disagree with your preconceptions. That being the case, I see no point in trying to do so in more depth. Suffice it to say, I look at many issues and try to combine them in my own fashion. In any event, McGriff is not a slam dunk choice, and I happen to believe there is a reasonable basis for excluding him. You happen to disagree. I will give your opinion the respect you at best begrudgingly seem to give to mine.

Jim Albright

I do believe that debating issues is appropriate for this forum. Am I wrong in that assumption? I have read and understood the points you have made against McGriff, so what kind of respect are you looking for? I happen to think that your arguments against McGriff are faulty. For instance you say you wanted McGriff to be in the top 140 in MVP shares for position players, and when I showed that he was, you then still counted that against him because he was a firstbaseman? You changed your argument to fit your foregone conclusion.

Another example is how you count against him that his best 5 consecutive season total in win shares of 132 is 22nd among firstbaseman, and you want him to be in the top 20 because there are 140 position players in the hall. Well, are you saying that they shouldn't add anybody to the hall? Or that they should replace them with new ones? Also, when I looked online the source I found stated that his best 5 seasons in a row total were 143. I'm not saying you are wrong with that number but somebody is...

Its pretty clear that your argument against McGriff is not based on any precedent for how hall of fame players have been chosen in the past (by your standards Will Clark has a stronger hall argument than McGRiff which is ludicrous). Do I think McGriff is a perfect hall candidate? No. He's no Lou Gherig. I might even be convinced that he shouldn't be voted in on the first ballot. However, by any reasonable standard, he should get in.

[jalbright]

Maybe it is the way I read what you write, but I feel you convey a lack of respect for opposing viewpoints. The standards I use may be combined in an idiosyncratic way, but in what way is looking at how a man was perceived by those who saw him play through things such as MVP award shares an invalid element of that inquiry? Don't we also expect HOFers either to lead the league or at least among the league leaders? That's what black and gray ink try to measure. I don't think I need to remind anyone on this board that folks like to look at Win Shares often in the manner used by Bill James: career, top three seasons, best five consecutive seasons. You may or may not like any or even all of these measures, but they all try to get at least an element of greatness. I also use the HOF standards as a measure, which again is an attempt at looking at greatness. So there's my seven different angles on Fred McGriff. I think that when those seven things are looked at, McGriff comes up short.

My best five consecutive of 132 for McGriff is from page 476 of the latest Bill James Historical Abstract, in which McGriff is listed as the 21st best 1B.

I use the top 20 to a) give some leeway for new inductees (seeing as 140\8 is 17.5) and b) to allow for situations where some guys are closely bunched. That also assumes that all the top guys have been inducted, which is not true due to the vagaries of time (Frank Thomas isn't eligible yet), the BBWAA, and the various forms of the veteran's committee. That fact is also true of the 140 measure. In time, those numbers will have to expand. What I am trying to do here is use the number of players already inducted as a guide, though inidividual choices like George Kelly are mistakes. If you can better those marks, that's evidence you belong. If you can't, it's evidence you don't. I don't rely on any one measure to make the determination but rather the weight of the measures I use--and my assessment is McGriff is a definite gray area guy and one I'm not inclined to put in. If you put a greater emphasis on RBI or 493 HR or career win shares than I do, you might well reach a different conclusion.

Besides, as I recall the discussion, I am not the only one to say Fred doesn't belong. You're free to call us all idiots if you so choose. However, I think the evidence goes in different directions for Fred, which makes both sides of the argument pass at least the reasonability test. Let's face it, he's not in a class with Gehrig or Jimmie Foxx. Nor is he with the Steve Garveys or George Kellys.

Jim Albright

[Edgartohof]

Let's face it, he's not in a class with Gehrig or Jimmie Foxx. Nor is he with the Steve Garveys or George Kellys.


First off, almost no one is in the same class with Gehrig (or Foxx), so you don't really need to even mention them. And personally I'd say that McGriff is ahead of Garvey, but at the VERY least tied with him, and Freddy boy is far ahead of Kelly (Kelly's OPS+ 110; McGriff's OPS+ 134). Kelly had a couple good years ('20, '21, '24), but his BA is only 7 points above League Average, his OBP is 6 points BELOW average. McGriff is 16 points above the league average in BA, and 40 points above in OBP. So tell me, who is better? Oh and did I mention, that Mcgriff played in nearly 840 more games than Kelly. So stop trying to make McGriff look worse by comparing him to lower level players - it ain't working.

[Pine Tar]

First off, almost no one is in the same class with Gehrig (or Foxx), so you don't really need to even mention them. And personally I'd say that McGriff is ahead of Garvey, but at the VERY least tied with him, and Freddy boy is far ahead of Kelly (Kelly's OPS+ 110; McGriff's OPS+ 134). Kelly had a couple good years ('20, '21, '24), but his BA is only 7 points above League Average, his OBP is 6 points BELOW average. McGriff is 16 points above the league average in BA, and 40 points above in OBP. So tell me, who is better? Oh and did I mention, that Mcgriff played in nearly 840 more games than Kelly. So stop trying to make McGriff look worse by comparing him to lower level players - it ain't working.
Edgar I actually think that Jim was agreeing with you on this one. I don't want to put words in his mouth but I think he was saying that McGriff is somewhere in between Foxx and Garvey.

A couple things of clarification though:

1. Frank Thomas is not a 1b, he is a DH so his numbers should not be compared to other 1b like McGriff.

2. I can only assume that 1994 was one of the best 5 win share seasons for McGriff considering it was his best season, but since I don't own the almanac I can't be sure. The website I found that listed his best 5 seasons as 143 perhaps was adjusting for the appreviated season, which seems like a reasonable thing to do, both for the 3 and 5 years numbers, and would greatly change where McGriff ranks on those measures. I know it would make him in the top 20 for 1b for the 5 consecutive season win share total.
(I am not sure how this has been handled though so someonw with an almanac may be so kind as to clue us in.)

3. Again, by adjusting the MVP totals to remove pitchers McGriff is in the top 140, so by Jim's method this should be a positive.

4. As for being in the top 140 in black and grey in being a standard, I think we may have had this discussion before, but it is significantly more difficult to rack up black and grey ink scores now than it was in the past simply due to the number of players in the league. For instance, there are only 9 active everyday players who are in the top 140 in grey ink (5 if you subtract Palmeiro, Bagwell, Sosa, and Frank Thomas who all may never play again).

So even by using the your own system Jim, it appears to me that McGriff actually qualifies for the hall in 5/7 measures and not 2/7. I'll concede McGriff's grey and black ink scores aren't as good as they could be even with the problems of era and park factors.
Is that how you read it as well? If not, why not?

[BoSox Rule]

Sorry, but no way. His last 7 win year was 1992. His only 3 years with 9 wins (1 of them was above 10) was 1988-1990. He was really nothing special after his 27th birthday, except for 1999. This isn't a HOF line. <---------ADJUSTED FOR SEASON-------------> <------------ADJUSTED FOR ALL TIME------------->
AGE YEAR TEAM OUT UEQR EQA EQR BRAR BRAA FRAR FRAA PRAR WARP1 EQA EQR BRAR BRAA FRAR FRAA PRAR WARP2 WARP3
22 1986 TOR-A 4 0 .091 0 0 -1 0 0 0 -0.1 .104 0 0 -1 0 0 0 .0 .0
23 1987 TOR-A 224 57 .293 52 23 13 1 -1 0 2.7 .304 57 28 18 1 0 0 3.2 3.2
24 1988 TOR-A 390 108 .318 111 62 44 17 5 0 8.6 .328 120 71 53 13 4 0 9.2 9.2
25 1989 TOR-A 413 116 .324 123 71 52 7 -5 0 8.5 .335 134 82 63 4 -6 0 9.2 9.2
26 1990 TOR-A 398 112 .316 112 61 43 25 14 0 9.5 .330 125 74 56 22 13 0 10.5 10.5
27 1991 SD_-N 389 104 .318 111 62 44 2 -12 0 7.0 .322 114 65 47 -2 -11 0 6.9 6.9
28 1992 SD_-N 389 106 .326 118 69 51 -2 -15 0 7.3 .328 119 70 52 -6 -15 0 7.0 7.0
29 1993 SD_-N 226 53 .295 53 25 14 -2 -8 0 2.6 .296 54 25 15 -3 -8 0 2.4 2.4
29 1993 ATL-N 177 56 .327 54 32 24 0 -6 0 3.5 .328 55 32 24 -2 -6 0 3.2 3.2
30 1994 ATL-N 295 92 .324 88 50 37 -1 -10 0 5.4 .323 87 50 36 -4 -10 0 5.0 6.0
31 1995 ATL-N 392 89 .284 84 34 17 22 12 0 6.3 .282 83 33 15 20 11 0 5.9 6.3
32 1996 ATL-N 442 106 .288 99 43 23 8 -4 0 5.6 .287 97 41 21 4 -5 0 5.0 5.0
33 1997 ATL-N 413 86 .278 84 31 13 -3 -13 0 3.2 .277 83 31 12 -6 -15 0 2.8 2.8
34 1998 TB_-A 410 92 .274 80 28 10 -3 -12 0 2.8 .289 92 40 21 -5 -13 0 3.9 3.9
35 1999 TB_-A 369 113 .309 98 51 34 -2 -10 0 5.3 .321 107 61 44 -3 -11 0 6.2 6.2
36 2000 TB_-A 416 97 .274 81 29 10 -7 -17 0 2.4 .285 90 38 19 -10 -18 0 3.1 3.1
37 2001 TB_-A 237 66 .306 62 32 21 6 1 0 4.1 .317 67 37 26 5 1 0 4.6 4.6
37 2001 CHI-N 125 35 .311 34 18 12 0 -3 0 2.0 .311 34 18 12 0 -3 0 1.9 1.9
38 2002 CHI-N 387 86 .292 89 40 22 -2 -10 0 4.2 .293 90 40 23 -3 -11 0 4.2 4.2
39 2003 LA_-N 223 38 .262 39 11 1 -5 -10 0 .7 .262 39 11 1 -5 -10 0 .7 .7
40 2004 TB_-A 59 5 .197 5 -2 -5 1 0 0 -0.2 .207 6 -2 -4 0 0 0 -0.2 -0.2

.3237 6378 1617 .300 1578 769 479 62 -103 0 91.2 .306 1653 844 554 21 -113 0 94.7 96.0

[RuthMayBond]

Sorry, but no way. His last 7 win year was 1992. His only 3 years with 9 wins (1 of them was above 10) was 1988-1990. He was really nothing special after his 27th birthday, except for 1999. This isn't a HOF line. <---------ADJUSTED FOR SEASON-------------> <------------ADJUSTED FOR ALL TIME------------->
AGE YEAR TEAM OUT UEQR EQA EQR BRAR BRAA FRAR FRAA PRAR WARP1 EQA EQR BRAR BRAA FRAR FRAA PRAR WARP2 WARP3
22 1986 TOR-A 4 0 .091 0 0 -1 0 0 0 -0.1 .104 0 0 -1 0 0 0 .0 .0
23 1987 TOR-A 224 57 .293 52 23 13 1 -1 0 2.7 .304 57 28 18 1 0 0 3.2 3.2
24 1988 TOR-A 390 108 .318 111 62 44 17 5 0 8.6 .328 120 71 53 13 4 0 9.2 9.2
25 1989 TOR-A 413 116 .324 123 71 52 7 -5 0 8.5 .335 134 82 63 4 -6 0 9.2 9.2
26 1990 TOR-A 398 112 .316 112 61 43 25 14 0 9.5 .330 125 74 56 22 13 0 10.5 10.5
27 1991 SD_-N 389 104 .318 111 62 44 2 -12 0 7.0 .322 114 65 47 -2 -11 0 6.9 6.9
28 1992 SD_-N 389 106 .326 118 69 51 -2 -15 0 7.3 .328 119 70 52 -6 -15 0 7.0 7.0
29 1993 SD_-N 226 53 .295 53 25 14 -2 -8 0 2.6 .296 54 25 15 -3 -8 0 2.4 2.4
29 1993 ATL-N 177 56 .327 54 32 24 0 -6 0 3.5 .328 55 32 24 -2 -6 0 3.2 3.2
30 1994 ATL-N 295 92 .324 88 50 37 -1 -10 0 5.4 .323 87 50 36 -4 -10 0 5.0 6.0
31 1995 ATL-N 392 89 .284 84 34 17 22 12 0 6.3 .282 83 33 15 20 11 0 5.9 6.3
32 1996 ATL-N 442 106 .288 99 43 23 8 -4 0 5.6 .287 97 41 21 4 -5 0 5.0 5.0
33 1997 ATL-N 413 86 .278 84 31 13 -3 -13 0 3.2 .277 83 31 12 -6 -15 0 2.8 2.8
34 1998 TB_-A 410 92 .274 80 28 10 -3 -12 0 2.8 .289 92 40 21 -5 -13 0 3.9 3.9
35 1999 TB_-A 369 113 .309 98 51 34 -2 -10 0 5.3 .321 107 61 44 -3 -11 0 6.2 6.2
36 2000 TB_-A 416 97 .274 81 29 10 -7 -17 0 2.4 .285 90 38 19 -10 -18 0 3.1 3.1
37 2001 TB_-A 237 66 .306 62 32 21 6 1 0 4.1 .317 67 37 26 5 1 0 4.6 4.6
37 2001 CHI-N 125 35 .311 34 18 12 0 -3 0 2.0 .311 34 18 12 0 -3 0 1.9 1.9
38 2002 CHI-N 387 86 .292 89 40 22 -2 -10 0 4.2 .293 90 40 23 -3 -11 0 4.2 4.2
39 2003 LA_-N 223 38 .262 39 11 1 -5 -10 0 .7 .262 39 11 1 -5 -10 0 .7 .7
40 2004 TB_-A 59 5 .197 5 -2 -5 1 0 0 -0.2 .207 6 -2 -4 0 0 0 -0.2 -0.2

.3237 6378 1617 .300 1578 769 479 62 -103 0 91.2 .306 1653 844 554 21 -113 0 94.7 96.0That's more WARP3 than Greenberg, Cepeda, Beckley, Terry, Sisler, Bottomley, Chance AND GKelly.

[BoSox Rule]

Hank Greenberg was an amazing hitter and a pretty good fielder who didn't have the longevity. He averaged 10 WARP/season. He's definitely a Hall of Famer and McGriff doesn't even compare. Everyone knows Sisler is overrated and whether or not he belongs in the Hall is arguable due to his eyesight. Personally, I wouldn't have him in the Hall because of what did happen. The quality of his league wasn't great and he was nothing after age 28, and was really only an elite player in 1920. Being a better than Beckley, Bottomly, Chance and Kelly isn't much on a Hall of Fame resume. Wrongs aren't righted by more wrongs.

[jalbright]

First off, almost no one is in the same class with Gehrig (or Foxx), so you don't really need to even mention them. And personally I'd say that McGriff is ahead of Garvey, but at the VERY least tied with him, and Freddy boy is far ahead of Kelly (Kelly's OPS+ 110; McGriff's OPS+ 134). Kelly had a couple good years ('20, '21, '24), but his BA is only 7 points above League Average, his OBP is 6 points BELOW average. McGriff is 16 points above the league average in BA, and 40 points above in OBP. So tell me, who is better? Oh and did I mention, that Mcgriff played in nearly 840 more games than Kelly. So stop trying to make McGriff look worse by comparing him to lower level players - it ain't working.

You totally misunderstood what I was trying to say, probably through less than perfect writing on my part plus less than perfect reading on your part. Let me try again. I'm saying that the obvious black and white cases are the Gehrig/Foxx guys on one side and the Garvey/Kelly guys and lower on the other. Some guys are rather close to those marks and can be treated as black and white cases. After that, everybody is a shade of gray. Some cases definitely belong on one side or the other. After that, it's a matter of how you evaluate people and the standards used to set the borderline. I've conceded McGriff can make a reasonable argument, which is something I wouldn't say about Kelly or Garvey. I simply happen to believe McGriff's argument isn't persuasive.

Jim Albright

[jalbright]

Edgar I actually think that Jim was agreeing with you on this one. I don't want to put words in his mouth but I think he was saying that McGriff is somewhere in between Foxx and Garvey.

A couple things of clarification though:

1. Frank Thomas is not a 1b, he is a DH so his numbers should not be compared to other 1b like McGriff.

2. I can only assume that 1994 was one of the best 5 win share seasons for McGriff considering it was his best season, but since I don't own the almanac I can't be sure. The website I found that listed his best 5 seasons as 143 perhaps was adjusting for the appreviated season, which seems like a reasonable thing to do, both for the 3 and 5 years numbers, and would greatly change where McGriff ranks on those measures. I know it would make him in the top 20 for 1b for the 5 consecutive season win share total.
(I am not sure how this has been handled though so someonw with an almanac may be so kind as to clue us in.)

3. Again, by adjusting the MVP totals to remove pitchers McGriff is in the top 140, so by Jim's method this should be a positive.

4. As for being in the top 140 in black and grey in being a standard, I think we may have had this discussion before, but it is significantly more difficult to rack up black and grey ink scores now than it was in the past simply due to the number of players in the league. For instance, there are only 9 active everyday players who are in the top 140 in grey ink (5 if you subtract Palmeiro, Bagwell, Sosa, and Frank Thomas who all may never play again).

So even by using the your own system Jim, it appears to me that McGriff actually qualifies for the hall in 5/7 measures and not 2/7. I'll concede McGriff's grey and black ink scores aren't as good as they could be even with the problems of era and park factors.
Is that how you read it as well? If not, why not?

1. Frank Thomas is a 1B/DH, and I lump the two together. There isn't a position with less defensive responsibility than 1B in a non-DH league (why else put guys like Dr Strangeglove there?), so I think the comparison remains apt.

2. If we're going to remove pitchers from the MVP list, we should add in the Cap Ansons, Dan Brouthers, Roger Connors, George Davises, et al who predated MVP voting. If that floats your boat, fine--but my own take is that adding back those early guys pushes McGriff back out of the mix.

3. I don't care to make the speculative adjustment you advocate for black in and gray ink, largely because these are smaller impact issues in my overall rating. They're a form of evidence I don't want to ignore, but, as you point out, there are reasons not to go too far with it. All I can say is the overall approach i use gives me results I subjectively agree with more than any other approach I've seen anywhere else. I am especially unwilling to make your speculative adjustment with gray ink, which allows one to finish in the top 10. If you're a great, 10th place isn't too much to ask of even a modern hitter IMO. McGwire, Thomas and Bagwell all did fine with the standard I'm using--could it be they were just better players than McGriff? And if so, doesn't being no better than the fourth 1B/DH among his contemporaries at least put him in the position of Richie Ashburn, namely having to justify why you belong in despite finishing so low? Ashburn is, IMO, able to do just that while I can't say the same for Fred.

4. I don't give Fred any break for 1994--he was part of the union that chose to strike. He might well have continued to play so well--but it's hardly written in stone that such a trend would have continued. He certainly could have tailed off at the end of the year. Furthermore, he benefitted from the union at least in a financial sense, and he had the advantage of earning so much he could easily dedicate himself to baseball year round, which many players of yesteryear could not afford to do in anything approaching the same degree. Lots of guys had jobs they held in the off season, which is a quaint notion today. In short, his financial situation gave him advantages over players of yesteryear, but I'm not going to try to factor those advantages out of existence, either.

5. You can interpret my approach as you will--but I will continue to apply it my own way in my own evaluations, thank you very much. I stand by my statement that for McGriff, 5 of the 7 things I look at are against him, and the two positives aren't enough to outweigh that IMO.

Jim Albright

[Edgartohof]

You totally misunderstood what I was trying to say, probably through less than perfect writing on my part plus less than perfect reading on your part. Let me try again. I'm saying that the obvious black and white cases are the Gehrig/Foxx guys on one side and the Garvey/Kelly guys and lower on the other. Some guys are rather close to those marks and can be treated as black and white cases. After that, everybody is a shade of gray. Some cases definitely belong on one side or the other. After that, it's a matter of how you evaluate people and the standards used to set the borderline. I've conceded McGriff can make a reasonable argument, which is something I wouldn't say about Kelly or Garvey. I simply happen to believe McGriff's argument isn't persuasive.

Jim Albright


Sorry about that, now that I took another look at what you wrote, it makes more sense. I was on a train of thought, and just went with it. I'll try to pay more attention next time - or ask for clarification.

[jalbright]

Sorry about that, now that I took another look at what you wrote, it makes more sense. I was on a train of thought, and just went with it. I'll try to pay more attention next time - or ask for clarification.

Not a problem--it happens to all of us from time to time. Far too often, I write later in the day, when I'm not as sharp as I could be, either.

Jim Albright

[Pine Tar]

Sorry, but no way. His last 7 win year was 1992. His only 3 years with 9 wins (1 of them was above 10) was 1988-1990. He was really nothing special after his 27th birthday, except for 1999. This isn't a HOF line. <---------ADJUSTED FOR SEASON-------------> <------------ADJUSTED FOR ALL TIME------------->
AGE YEAR TEAM OUT UEQR EQA EQR BRAR BRAA FRAR FRAA PRAR WARP1 EQA EQR BRAR BRAA FRAR FRAA PRAR WARP2 WARP3
22 1986 TOR-A 4 0 .091 0 0 -1 0 0 0 -0.1 .104 0 0 -1 0 0 0 .0 .0
23 1987 TOR-A 224 57 .293 52 23 13 1 -1 0 2.7 .304 57 28 18 1 0 0 3.2 3.2
24 1988 TOR-A 390 108 .318 111 62 44 17 5 0 8.6 .328 120 71 53 13 4 0 9.2 9.2
25 1989 TOR-A 413 116 .324 123 71 52 7 -5 0 8.5 .335 134 82 63 4 -6 0 9.2 9.2
26 1990 TOR-A 398 112 .316 112 61 43 25 14 0 9.5 .330 125 74 56 22 13 0 10.5 10.5
27 1991 SD_-N 389 104 .318 111 62 44 2 -12 0 7.0 .322 114 65 47 -2 -11 0 6.9 6.9
28 1992 SD_-N 389 106 .326 118 69 51 -2 -15 0 7.3 .328 119 70 52 -6 -15 0 7.0 7.0
29 1993 SD_-N 226 53 .295 53 25 14 -2 -8 0 2.6 .296 54 25 15 -3 -8 0 2.4 2.4
29 1993 ATL-N 177 56 .327 54 32 24 0 -6 0 3.5 .328 55 32 24 -2 -6 0 3.2 3.2
30 1994 ATL-N 295 92 .324 88 50 37 -1 -10 0 5.4 .323 87 50 36 -4 -10 0 5.0 6.0
31 1995 ATL-N 392 89 .284 84 34 17 22 12 0 6.3 .282 83 33 15 20 11 0 5.9 6.3
32 1996 ATL-N 442 106 .288 99 43 23 8 -4 0 5.6 .287 97 41 21 4 -5 0 5.0 5.0
33 1997 ATL-N 413 86 .278 84 31 13 -3 -13 0 3.2 .277 83 31 12 -6 -15 0 2.8 2.8
34 1998 TB_-A 410 92 .274 80 28 10 -3 -12 0 2.8 .289 92 40 21 -5 -13 0 3.9 3.9
35 1999 TB_-A 369 113 .309 98 51 34 -2 -10 0 5.3 .321 107 61 44 -3 -11 0 6.2 6.2
36 2000 TB_-A 416 97 .274 81 29 10 -7 -17 0 2.4 .285 90 38 19 -10 -18 0 3.1 3.1
37 2001 TB_-A 237 66 .306 62 32 21 6 1 0 4.1 .317 67 37 26 5 1 0 4.6 4.6
37 2001 CHI-N 125 35 .311 34 18 12 0 -3 0 2.0 .311 34 18 12 0 -3 0 1.9 1.9
38 2002 CHI-N 387 86 .292 89 40 22 -2 -10 0 4.2 .293 90 40 23 -3 -11 0 4.2 4.2
39 2003 LA_-N 223 38 .262 39 11 1 -5 -10 0 .7 .262 39 11 1 -5 -10 0 .7 .7
40 2004 TB_-A 59 5 .197 5 -2 -5 1 0 0 -0.2 .207 6 -2 -4 0 0 0 -0.2 -0.2

.3237 6378 1617 .300 1578 769 479 62 -103 0 91.2 .306 1653 844 554 21 -113 0 94.7 96.0
In 2001 his WARP3 was 6.5. THat's pretty good too. As I understand it, anything above a 6 is at least a very good season, or even possibly an all-star type season.

He turned 27 in 1990 so are you saying that a 7 WARP3 isn't that good (1992)? Also, in 1994 (when he was 31) his WARP2 of 5.0 would have been a 7.2 if extrapolated out for a full season.

I agree that his WARP scores don't scream HOFer but they certainly don't say "no way" either. I mean they are at least as good and probably better than Jim Thome's and Carlos Delgado's whom many believe are hall worthy. The only first basemen of his era that McGriff's WARP scores are clearly worse than are Bagwell, McGwire, and Palmeiro, and Palmeiro's and McGwire's come with a cloud of steroid controversy.

[Pine Tar]

1. Frank Thomas is a 1B/DH, and I lump the two together. There isn't a position with less defensive responsibility than 1B in a non-DH league (why else put guys like Dr Strangeglove there?), so I think the comparison remains apt.
Jim Albright
The statement is absolutely remarkable. So playing first base is the same as "playing" DH!??:laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :noidea :noidea :noidea :noidea :noidea

[Pine Tar]

2. If we're going to remove pitchers from the MVP list, we should add in the Cap Ansons, Dan Brouthers, Roger Connors, George Davises, et al who predated MVP voting. If that floats your boat, fine--but my own take is that adding back those early guys pushes McGriff back out of the mix.
Jim Albright

Many would argue that you should subtract currently active players as well. That will put McGriff back in the top 140.

[Pine Tar]

4. I don't give Fred any break for 1994--he was part of the union that chose to strike. He might well have continued to play so well--but it's hardly written in stone that such a trend would have continued. He certainly could have tailed off at the end of the year. Furthermore, he benefitted from the union at least in a financial sense, and he had the advantage of earning so much he could easily dedicate himself to baseball year round, which many players of yesteryear could not afford to do in anything approaching the same degree. Lots of guys had jobs they held in the off season, which is a quaint notion today. In short, his financial situation gave him advantages over players of yesteryear, but I'm not going to try to factor those advantages out of existence, either.
Jim Albright
three questions?
1. Which hall of fame first basemen are you referring to that had off-season jobs?
2. And he might have actually performed better if there hadn't been a strike so what from his history leads you to believe that he would have done worse?
3. Also, how does postseason success factor into hall worthiness? The reason I ask is that McGriff was one of the best postseason performers in the modern era and won a world series. Doesn't that also need to be taken into account?

[Chisox]

I'll have to agree with Chancellor on this. McGriff gets lumped in with more recent guys like Delgado and Helton and doesn't deserve to. I'm not sure if he even deserves to be lumped in with McGwire, Palmeiro, Thomas, and Bagwell as guys who benifitted from the home-run derby era. McGriff's prime was his first ten years or so (fairly normal) and by the HR explosion, his prime was about done. As a result, I don't think he took advantage of the offensive numbers to the extent of the others did and that shows in his adjusted numbers. I think McGriff's primary contempary should be Will Clark. McGriff was legitematley considered the best 1B in the game fom the late 80's to mid '90s, and the majority of each season.

[jalbright]

If you want adjustments for 1994 and/or 1995:

1) I'm not adjusting McGriff downward for playing 162 game seasons instead of the 154 which was the 20th century norm before 1961. Even with the strike, he's ahead of the game overall via that decision.

2) 1995 gets him nowhere, as he only lost 18 games to the lockout and even if you adjust, that won't beat out his 26 of five years earlier (and third best career number of 26). For his peak five, he would go to 31 for 1994, but it wouldn't improve the mark. Here's why: He had 132 from 1988-92 (24-30-26-25-27) and in 1993 he had 23. The adjusted 31 from 1994 won't improve 88-89's 54, though it will tie it. If he gets precisely nine points (exactly mimicking his earlier part of 1994 and thereby setting a new high for a season in win shares) he'd tie to get into the top 20 in top 3 seasons. If he lost a mere one (and thus instead tied his best WS season), he's on the outside of 20. I'll give him the 8 for the sake of argument and withhold the ninth. To me, the burden is on you to prove he'd hold that earlier pace in 1994 or surpass it for those mythical 47 games, and there's no way to do that.

Jim Albright

[jalbright]

3. Also, how does postseason success factor into hall worthiness? The reason I ask is that McGriff was one of the best postseason performers in the modern era and won a world series. Doesn't that also need to be taken into account?
He didn't significantly outperform his career marks, and if we carried it to the actual seasons he played, I doubt he outperformed his weighted seasonal marks (career 284/377/509 versus playoffs career of 303/385/532) when we're talking 50 games, that degree of variance is minimal. Also, if it weren't for division series, his teams would have been 3-4 in the series he played in. By the way, why didn't such a great postseason performer ever win a LCS or WS MVP? I see no reason to give him any boost for that.

Jim Albright

[Pine Tar]

If you want adjustments for 1994 and/or 1995:
If he gets precisely nine points (exactly mimicking his earlier part of 1994 and thereby setting a new high for a season in win shares) he'd tie to get into the top 20 in top 3 seasons. If he lost a mere one (and thus instead tied his best WS season), he's on the outside of 20. I'll give him the 8 for the sake of argument and withhold the ninth. To me, the burden is on you to prove he'd hold that earlier pace in 1994 or surpass it for those mythical 47 games, and there's no way to do that.
Jim Albright
So McGriff is one win share short of being a hall of famer?? :rolleyes:

[Pine Tar]

He didn't significantly outperform his career marks, and if we carried it to the actual seasons he played, I doubt he outperformed his weighted seasonal marks (career 284/377/509 versus playoffs career of 303/385/532) when we're talking 50 games, that degree of variance is minimal.
Jim Albright
One can only assume that the quality of pitching and defense is a bit better in the postseason than it is in the regular season (I mean these are the best teams in the league), so the fact that he performed a bit better in the postseason than in the regular season is a much bigger difference than you give him credit for.

[jalbright]

So McGriff is one win share short of being a hall of famer?? :rolleyes:

Not in my book. Once again, you like to beat up on straw men.

Also, as I surmised, Fred slightly underperformed his season marks in the playoffs. His OPS (weighted by his playing time in the playoffs) during those seasons was .931, in the playoffs, it was .917.

Jim Albright

[Pine Tar]

Not in my book. Once again, you like to beat up on straw men.
Jim Albright
If you didn't build such flimsy arguments, they wouldn't so easily fall apart like straw men when I deconstructed them.

You say that adjusting his 1994 winshares would get him in the top 20 for 1b on that measure (which is how you define hall worthiness), but then you say that you are going to subtract one basically because you want to (I think you have said because 1. he didn't have to have an off season job like older players did, :rolleyes: 2. before 1961 they played less games, :rolleyes: 3. he was a member of the union:rolleyes: ). Which results in McGriff no longer being among the top 20!?:laugh :noidea

You also say that he is out of the top 140 of position players in MVP shares. WHen I point out that he actually is 135th (which I can only assume you would have counted as a positive if you had thought of removing pitchers from the list yourself) you then say that 18th century players should be added to the list so he's out again. :rolleyes: It certainly seems reasonable to also remove currently active players because we are basing the 140 on the number of players currently in the hall. When I mention this, you don't respond.:crazy

Finally, I point out that the quality of pitching is a lot better in the postseason, and you come back and say that he performed worse in the postseason than in the regular season (even though the numbers are pretty much the same). WHat does that have to do with the picthing being better in the postseason and how is a postseason .917 OPS not something to put in the plus column of Fred McGRiff's hall resume?

You seem to look and act like a straw man so excure me if I treat you that way. :waving

[jalbright]

No, sir, you simply cannot abide that someone else disagrees with you and therefore you are quite willing to distort what others say so you can "win". You are the one whose argument has been littered with inaccuracies I have pointed out. At this point, it is obvious an attempt at civil discourse with you will be unavailing, so I will leave you to your machinations.

Jim Albright

[Pine Tar]

No, sir, you simply cannot abide that someone else disagrees with you and therefore you are quite willing to distort what others say so you can "win". You are the one whose argument has been littered with inaccuracies I have pointed out. At this point, it is obvious an attempt at civil discourse with you will be unavailing, so I will leave you to your machinations.

Jim Albright
:clapping Nice speech!
I guess that means that you realize how weak your argument is so you resort to flowery language. Go back to writing about Japanese baseball where nobody here can debate you.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Tine Par, that last comment was a bit below the belt wasn't it.

Fred McGriff: solid player, not a HOFer.

[Pine Tar]

Tine Par, that last comment was a bit below the belt wasn't it.

Fred McGriff: solid player, not a HOFer.

You are right that I shouldn't have suck to Jim's level. How is my comment any worse than jailbright's "No, sir, you simply cannot abide that someone else disagrees with you and therefore you are quite willing to distort what others say so you can "win"."?

It seems to me that his psychological analysis of why I am disagreeing with him is a bit more "below the belt".

As soon as I challenged Jim on his Hall standards he accused me of constucting a straw man in post 35. "That's the point I'm trying to make, not the straw man you manufacture and then conveniently beat up."

And then when I didn't back down from what I view as inconsistent logic he said that "you certainly like to argue" in post 37. Check out post 40 for more of the same, and just about every one after that directed at ME and not at my arguments.

So I actually stand by my last statement. If he can't handle a hard nosed analysis of his position on an issue without making it into a personal attack, he shouldn't be posting here.

What's the funniest thing about his analysis of me, is it actually is a projection of his own actions in this thread and in a previous "discussion" we had about Albert Belle's hall worthiness. Check out that one and you will see the real master of the "straw man" in action.

[Tigerfan1974]

Mcgriff? No.
Thome? No
Thomas? No

[RuthMayBond]

Thomas? No
Foxx? No?
Gehrig? No?

[leecemark]

--TF84, you really think McGwire is a clear yes and Thomas is a clear no. Good luck selling that "logic".

[jalbright]

I concede I should have never said Pine Tar cannot abide people disagreeing with him and attribute what I see as his distortions of my position to that reason. I apologize for saying that as I cannot know such a thing. I also apologize for getting angry, though I do not think continuing this discussion further will in any way make that issue improve.

Jim Albright

[Sultan_1895-1948]

You are right that I shouldn't have suck to Jim's level. How is my comment any worse than jailbright's "No, sir, you simply cannot abide that someone else disagrees with you and therefore you are quite willing to distort what others say so you can "win"."?

It seems to me that his psychological analysis of why I am disagreeing with him is a bit more "below the belt".

As soon as I challenged Jim on his Hall standards he accused me of constucting a straw man in post 35. "That's the point I'm trying to make, not the straw man you manufacture and then conveniently beat up."

And then when I didn't back down from what I view as inconsistent logic he said that "you certainly like to argue" in post 37. Check out post 40 for more of the same, and just about every one after that directed at ME and not at my arguments.

So I actually stand by my last statement. If he can't handle a hard nosed analysis of his position on an issue without making it into a personal attack, he shouldn't be posting here.

What's the funniest thing about his analysis of me, is it actually is a projection of his own actions in this thread and in a previous "discussion" we had about Albert Belle's hall worthiness. Check out that one and you will see the real master of the "straw man" in action.

I wasn't "analyzing" you or him. I had no previous knowledge of your prior disagreements and I have no interest in reading them right now. I was simply commenting on your last comment; so maybe it's my fault for commenting on something I knew very little about. I've dealt with Jim on here a bit, and have read much of his stuff; he seems very civil...so that's where I was coming from.

[jalbright]

If we're going to remove pitchers from the MVP list, we should add in the Cap Ansons, Dan Brouthers, Roger Connors, George Davises, et al who predated MVP voting.

As a matter of clarity, the guys who predate MVP voting should at a minimum include everyone whose career started before 1920. The source I used, baseball-reference.com, uses records for only four seasons in each league before 1922 in the AL and 1924 in the NL, with no AL award in 1929. I count 45 position players who weren't already ahead of McGriff (Ruth, Speaker, and Heilmann already were) who meet those criteria. Not all of them (Dave Bancroft, Johnny Evers, Ray Schalk as examples) would have done better than McGriff to be sure, but with Anson, Brouthers, Cobb, LaJoie, Hamilton, Connor, George Davis, Eddie Collins, Wagner, Wheat,Burkett, Crawford, Delahanty, Home Run Baker, Clarke, Sisler, Wheat Youngs and Ewing among the 45, a good number would beat McGriff.

Jim Albright

[Pine Tar]

As a matter of clarity, the guys who predate MVP voting should at a minimum include everyone whose career started before 1920. The source I used, baseball-reference.com, uses records for only four seasons in each league before 1922 in the AL and 1924 in the NL, with no AL award in 1929. I count 45 position players who weren't already ahead of McGriff (Ruth, Speaker, and Heilmann already were) who meet those criteria. Not all of them (Dave Bancroft, Johnny Evers, Ray Schalk as examples) would have done better than McGriff to be sure, but with Anson, Brouthers, Cobb, LaJoie, Hamilton, Connor, George Davis, Eddie Collins, Wagner, Wheat,Burkett, Crawford, Delahanty, Home Run Baker, Clarke, Sisler, Wheat Youngs and Ewing among the 45, a good number would beat McGriff.

Jim Albright
If you want to split hairs about the whole mvp thing:
Both Cobb and Collins are already ahead of McGriff in MVP shares.

Of the rest of the list, the only ones who I see as likely to have collected more MVP shares that McGriff are Anson, Brouthers, LaJoie, Hamilton, Connor, Wagner, Burkett, Crawford, Delahanty, and Clarke.

That is a total of 10 players who would be ahead of McGriff, which would move his rank back out of the top 140 to 145.

Since the 140 number is based on the number of position players in the hall, it makes since then to not count Joe Jackson and Pete Rose as being part of the top 140. Doing so results in his share rank being 143. This is hardly a strike against him, IMO.

If we want to be completely accurate with this, then we would also subtract currently active players on the list. There are 18 active players who are ahead of McGriff in MVP shares. Doing that results in his MVP share rank being 125. Also certainly not a mark against his hall candicacy.

[jalbright]

If you want to go that way, fine, that is your privilege. Since my 140 is based on how many MLB position players are in the Hall, at least an equally fair way to do it is to remove all HOFers whose careers started before 1920 from consideration. I'll be generous and only drop the cutoff to 100. We could, as you have suggested earlier, drop pitchers, and current players as well, and McGriff still wouldn't make it under the mark. As before, McGriff is a gray area guy, and as such, there are reasons to support him and reasons not to. I am not going to reignite the debate, and expect this to be my final word on the topic.

Jim Albright

[Pine Tar]

If you want to go that way, fine, that is your privilege. Since my 140 is based on how many MLB position players are in the Hall, at least an equally fair way to do it is to remove all HOFers whose careers started before 1920 from consideration. I'll be generous and only drop the cutoff to 100. We could, as you have suggested earlier, drop pitchers, and current players as well, and McGriff still wouldn't make it under the mark. As before, McGriff is a gray area guy, and as such, there are reasons to support him and reasons not to. I am not going to reignite the debate, and expect this to be my final word on the topic.

Jim Albright

Your top 100 since 1920 seams reasonable as well, and of course the are reasons for and against him. WHat has been the debate though are the specific reasons for and against.

As for the top 100 in MVP shares (which he is ranked 147th without any type of adjustments), when you exclude pre-1920 players (-6), Rose and Jackson (-2), currently active players (-18), pitchers (-12), AND retired players not yet eligible (which I neglected to exclude last time and would also have to be done with any analysis based on the number of players in the hall) (-8), his rank then is 101st all-time. Right where he needs to be according your NEW criteria.

[jalbright]

If we're going to exclude players who retired before or at the same time as McGriff and aren't yet eligible for election (without the Rose/J Jackson issues), then the whole discussion is premature. You can't include him and exclude those who retired before him or after the same season as he did. Those recent retirees are McGriff's direct competition.

[four tool]

points like this are why we'll always be debating merits--it isn't cut and dry

[julusnc]

Would Fred McGriff be a first ballot Hall of Famer if he had played his entire career with the New York Yankees?

I see alot of support from time to time for Don Mattingly for short peak value but very little support for McGriff.I know it is a peak vs longevity question but why do we short change McGriff?

[KCGHOST]

I don't think McGriff would get any more love had he played for the Mattingly Yankees since they didn't win anything. Had he played with the Jeters it would be a different story. It's not a NY thing, but a championship thing. If you play on several championship teams your resume gets a little more luster (e.g "Catfish" Hunter).

And McGriff was on a team that traded him and then two years later won back-to-back WS titles. He is also at a position that is absolutely loaded with contemporary talent. He has to go against Thomas, Bagwell, McGwire, Palmeiro, Thome, Clark, Giambi, Clark, etc. That is a tough group to be in.

[STLCards2]

Playing on the Yankees has not helped a lot of players lately...Munson, Mattingly, Guidry, etc. I don't know if it would have helped or not. I do think more playoff exposure would help him. I am still on the fence on whether or not he is deserving.

[538280]

I'm on the fence too, but lately I'm been leaning towards that he is a HOFer. I really think he is more dominating that people realize. People say he was never a dominant HR hitter. He led the league in HRs twice, and was top 5 seven times. That is plenty good enough in league standings to be considered a very good HR hitter.

He was a complete hitter too, did well in BA and OBP as well as SLG. Would take a walk and hit for good contact. 134 OPS+ is very, very solid for a player with that longevity.

I think now he's a HOFer, but if you want to get another answer, ask me again in a few weeks.

I'm confident though, and I always will be, that he's a distinctly better player that Mattingly. Really, there's not much difference between McGriff and Mattingly's peak. Mattingly is horrifically overrated because of the triple crown statistics.

I think there is a good chance McGriff would get more support if he was a Yankee.

[leecemark]

--I was pretty turned off by his hanging around trying to get those last HR to reach 500. He made it seem as if that was needed for him to be a Hall of famer and I rejected him based on that. Like Chris, I've warmed to his candidacy upon reflection. I'd vote for him if I had the opportunity.

[DoubleX]

I'd probably put him in. For some reason, his numbers and effort (apart from his hanging on at the very end) feel pretty pure to me, and about as pure as a player can get from his period. Can't really explain it. That being said, I wouldn't be upset if he didn't make it as I think there some more deserving players (including Dick Allen and Keith Hernandez at 1B) waiting to get in.

Speaking of Hernandez, how do you guys think McGriff compares to Hernandez? I generally have the two pretty close in my 1B rankings, but Hernandez almost always comes out just ahead.

[leecemark]

--I rank Hernandez above McGriff. However, to me Hernandez is a clear cut Hall of Famer. Very good hitter, although certainly below the level of the elite 1B's. What separates him from the crowd of 1Bs with similar offensive numbers is his claim to being the best fielder ever at his position. Not as valuable as being able to make the same claim at SS or anything, but enough to clearly put him over the Cooperstown line IMO. McGriff doesn't have the same hook, but he was the better hitter and was so for longer.

[STLCards2]

--I rank Hernandez above McGriff. However, to me Hernandez is a clear cut Hall of Famer. Very good hitter, although certainly below the level of the elite 1B's. What separates him from the crowd of 1Bs with similar offensive numbers is his claim to being the best fielder ever at his position. Not as valuable as being able to make the same claim at SS or anything, but enough to clearly put him over the Cooperstown line IMO. McGriff doesn't have the same hook, but he was the better hitter and was so for longer.

I would conclude the opposite. McGriff's offensive edge is a little more important than Hernandez' defensive edge. It wouldn't kill me to see either in Cooperstown or neither in Cooperstown. If I had to pick, I would probably put McGriff in, and Hernandez would be slightly on the out. Just my opinion.

[Brad Harris]

Playing on the Yankees has not helped a lot of players lately...Munson, Mattingly, Guidry, etc. I don't know if it would have helped or not. I do think more playoff exposure would help him. I am still on the fence on whether or not he is deserving.

World Series rings or not, wearing the pinstripes has made Munson, Mattingly and Guidry (especially the first two) more popular Hall-of-Fame candidates than they would be if they'd played elsewhere. Had Mattingly been a Toronto Blue Jay or San Diego Padre during his career, and McGriff a Yankee, there'd be more McGriff supporters and fewer Mattingly supporters.

That's just the way the pinstripe-effect works.

[Cougar]

McGriff didn't hang around all that long as an unproductive player.

In 2002 his Triple Crown numbers were .273/30/103. Probably not All-Star level in the Steroid Era, but most teams will take that from their first baseman. He's certainly not tarnishing his legacy at this point.

He leaves as a free agent because the Cubs decide to give the 1b job to Hee Seop Choi (ahem, didn't work out so well), and (with 478 HRs and counting) McGriff makes the bad decision to go to LA (his stats in Chavez Ravine were about the worst of any park he'd ever played in).

Sure enough, he had a bad year in 2003, about half because he's not hitting at home and half because he got hurt badly for pretty much the first time in his career. (Which tends to happen after you turn 39.)

Even with all that, in 86 games, he manages 13 HR and an OPS+ of exactly 100 -- which means he's providing league average offense. Granted, there's no positional adjustment there (you need a lot more than league average from a 1b), but worst year of his career, everything goes wrong, he's hurt, and he still gives you league average.

So, winter of 2003-2004, here's McGriff's decision: He's nine HR from 500, a lifelong individual goal, and he's only one season removed from a 30/100 campaign. There's surely a decent chance that if he gets healthy and out of Chavez Ravine, he can still help a team win. Why not give it a try?

Then, of course, he gave it a shot, and it turned out he'd lost virtually any semblance of major league bat speed. And he was done.

The criticism of his hanging around is really unwarranted.

[Cougar]

Oh, and there should be no question that he's a HOFer. He's arguably the best retired candidate at 1b (if you want to demerit Big Mac and Raffy for PEDs).

Crime Dog hit 493 HR, has 2490 hits (he might have been eyeing 2500 almost as much as 500) played for winners, has some Black Ink and Gray Ink. All the boxes are checked; his career meets 48% of the average HOFers stats. Basically, the '94 strike kept him from the milestones, but then again, they're just arbitrary round numbers, right?

Keep him out, and we're rewriting the HOF requirements on the fly.

[leecemark]

--I don't disagree with that. The thing is he was so obvious about coming back JUST to get to 500, it got talked about alot and he failed miserably in the attempt. Rationally, it doesn't mean anything to his legacy and I've moved past it to where I can support him. It did breifly sour me on him though and I think many people still hold it against him. If he thought he had to get 500 it isn't surprising that other people adopted that view.

[dl4060]

Part of the reason for support for Mattingly is that he was perceived, for a time, as the best player in baseball. Part of that perception was because he did play in New York, and won an MVP award there. I am not sure if he was actually the best, but from 85-88 it was very common to hear that sentiment. I never really got the feeling that Mcgriff had the same level of reverance. While he was a great player, I do not remember a time period where he was thought of as the top player in the league. Top 10, maybe even top 5, but Mattingly had many supporters who believed he was the best, whereas Crimedog did not.

[Brad Harris]

I'm confident though, and I always will be, that he's a distinctly better player that Mattingly. Really, there's not much difference between McGriff and Mattingly's peak.

While I think McGriff is deserving of election and Mattingly is not, I don't know that I'd ever have said their peaks were similar. Until now.

Went to Baseball Prospectus and looked up their seasonal equivalent runs totals. Both players averaged 115 EQR/yr during their six-year peak seasons. But where Mattingly averaged 54 EQR/yr over his 8 other seasons, McGriff averaged 69 EQR/yr over 13 more seasons!

Even more impressed with McGriff, whose peak value has always been hidden by contextual factors.

Throw in Will Clark, a personal favorite, who has a six-year peak of 118 EQR/yr and 9 other seasons averaging 70 EQR/yr and you've got another one who bests Mattingly handily. Same problems as McGriff though: superficiality of park/era numbers cripple his chance with voters. Obviously the fact that Mattingly won an MVP and McGriff (and Clark) did not is also something voters are taking into account.

[jalbright]

Oh, and there should be no question that he's a HOFer. He's arguably the best retired candidate at 1b (if you want to demerit Big Mac and Raffy for PEDs).

Crime Dog hit 493 HR, has 2490 hits (he might have been eyeing 2500 almost as much as 500) played for winners, has some Black Ink and Gray Ink. All the boxes are checked; his career meets 48% of the average HOFers stats. Basically, the '94 strike kept him from the milestones, but then again, they're just arbitrary round numbers, right?

Keep him out, and we're rewriting the HOF requirements on the fly.

I disagree on a number of significant points. First of all, if you want a HOF 1B, I think you start with Dick Allen, who at his best was far more dominant than McGriff. Beyond that, I don't think if McGriff doesn't make it that it would be outside of established norms for the Hall. Here's what I wrote elsewhere about the Crime Dog:

I look at several factors, and McGriff's candidacy has some problems, which, depending on your outlook may or may not be overcome. There are about 140 position players from the majors in Cooperstown, so that's one standard. If a guy isn't in the top 20 at his position (unless he's a pitcher), that's an indication he probably doesn't belong.

Fred's career win share total of 342 (I believe) and his HOF standards score of 48 are over those marks, so those are positives. However, his black ink (league leaderships) leaves him 237th all-time, and his gray ink (top 10 finishes) leave him 199th all-time. His 83 win share total in his best three seasons places him 29th among 1B in the latest Bill James Historical Abstract, and his best 5 consecutive season total in win shares of 132 is 22nd in that same group. He's 147th in MVP award shares, which is close to where he needs to be, but short again. Actually, I'd like to see higher marks in MVP shares since the MVP voting in McGriff's day favored his type of player (RBI guy, in terms of the voting) over say a good hitting shortstop with a Gold Glove. To me, he's justthisclose to making it, but not quite there.

Jim Albright

[dl4060]

Mcgriff really is tough. I have a hard time shaking the feeling that if the steroid era had not happened he would go into the hall of fame easily. His career follows a pretty typical pattern. If the 94 season had finnished he probably would have had that 40+ HR .310+ BA season to hang his hat on. As it was, his career does not have that truly defining moment. If he could have played better 95-98 things might also be different. He went through a slight decline at exactly the time the league was exploding. His numbers during that period would not have looked all that bad in the 70's, but the roid era threw everything out of focus. I look at his career as similar to Eddie Murray's. Both players started to drop off around age 30 or 31 after a run of five seasons of being among the top few players in the league. Both players still posted decent numbers, and both were able to last for a long time.

If Mcgriff had played for the Yankees in the mid-90's, and switched his OPS+ levels from 95-97 with the ones he had from 90-92 I think he would be in. An OPS+ of 165 in 96' would have yielded some monstrous counting stats, and if you factor in the Yanks first world series in a long time? We might have had a guy who hit .320 with 100 walks a .400 OBP, a 600 SLG, and maybe 40-45 homeruns. He would not have actually had a better career, as we would be merely switching around seasons, not changing value levels, but he would have been looked at as a guy who went from good to great, and returned a storied franchise to dominance. I think the steroid era is what hurts Mcgriff the most, although his innocence may someday help him with hall voters.

Interestingly enough, I do not think Mattingly's peak was better than Mcgriff's. Mcgriff had more power, Donny hit for a better average, Mcgriff had a better batting eye. Mattingly never walked enough, which is a skill more recognized now than it was in the mid-80's. Having said that, he was still perceived to be the best player in baseball, and perception means alot to most voters.

[Chisox]

Part of the reason for support for Mattingly is that he was perceived, for a time, as the best player in baseball. Part of that perception was because he did play in New York, and won an MVP award there. I am not sure if he was actually the best, but from 85-88 it was very common to hear that sentiment. I never really got the feeling that Mcgriff had the same level of reverance. While he was a great player, I do not remember a time period where he was thought of as the top player in the league. Top 10, maybe even top 5, but Mattingly had many supporters who believed he was the best, whereas Crimedog did not.
I actually don't know about that. I was born in '82, but I remember in the late 80's/early 90's McGriff was considered the premiere 1B in the game. I don't remember him being thought of in the Gehrig/Foxx mold (and obviously rightfully so), but the best/most complete 1B in the game since, or at least in a long time. (I can only think Murray wasn't thought of very highly because of his low peak, and I have no clue why Allen wouldn't be included, other than personality. Clark deserves a nod, as well, here.) But the point is, I do remember when McGriff was thought of as the man at 1B. My memory may be faulty, but that's how I do remember it.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I think one of the main flaws in adjusted stats, even comparing "peers" is that they don't take into consideration (at least from what I know) when they happened. McGriff's prime was before the offensive explosion, and by the time it did happen, McGriff had already been playing for a decade and was starting to decline, all very natural. As a result, I don't think he benifetted from it nearly as much as others did. In other words, had his peak come later, I think his numbers would have looked A LOT more like Palmeiro's (at least) then they do now. I honestly don't think McGriff was helped by his era nearly to the extent that his adjusted stats say he was.

With all that said, and partly due to it, I've got McGriff up to 12th now on my 1B list. I think he is a HOF'er. Really intersting considering a couple years ago when he was playing I think the majority considered him as an outsider, ever so slightly. Now I think the majority on here view him as a HOFer, even if it is barely.

[Brad Harris]

So here's a thought - and yes, the steroid issue complicates this but - which was the better player: Fred McGriff or Rafael Palmeiro?

[leecemark]

--Before Palmerio's steroid bust I would have ranked him slightly ahead. 500 HR and 3,000 hits is a pretty exclusive club. Now I'd put McGriff slightly ahead. They are both somewhere in my second 10 firstbasemen, but that is congested territory.
--My first base rankings are more in flux than any other position. Number 1 is easy and number 2 almost as easy. Its starts getting hard pretty quick though and whoever is number 3 this week could not even make my top 10 next week. You've got great career guys like Anson and Murray and great peak guys like Brouthers, Greenberg, Mize, McCovey and Thomas (who also had pretty nice careers). Not to mention great stars like Conner, Killebrew and Bagwell (the latter of whom is arguably as high as 3rd:eek: ) who fit somewhere in between. Palmerio and McGriff are both in the second tier of career achievers and competing with the second tier of peak guys for rankings slots.

[Cougar]

Before the steroid bust, Palmeiro, but now...I think probably McGriff. Very, very close, though.

Palmeiro's raw numbers are clearly better, but McGriff's got more Black Ink (in terms of HR titles). McGriff was an early peak, Raffy a late peak. Raffy's better with the glove and on the basepaths (at least in the early part of his career). McGriff played for more winners, for what that's worth to anyone.

I think Leecemark's got it about right. Bagwell (assuming he's done) is the best unenshrined 1b.

I'm a lot less of a Dick Allen man than many on the board; obviously wonderful peak performance, but a very short career for my taste.

[dl4060]

I actually don't know about that. I was born in '82, but I remember in the late 80's/early 90's McGriff was considered the premiere 1B in the game. I don't remember him being thought of in the Gehrig/Foxx mold (and obviously rightfully so), but the best/most complete 1B in the game since, or at least in a long time. (I can only think Murray wasn't thought of very highly because of his low peak, and I have no clue why Allen wouldn't be included, other than personality. Clark deserves a nod, as well, here.) But the point is, I do remember when McGriff was thought of as the man at 1B. My memory may be faulty, but that's how I do remember it.



Your memory is not faulty, your were just a little young in 85-86' to expierience the buzz about Mattingly at the time. Mcgriff may have been thought of as the best 1B in the game, but he was never thought of as the best player in the game to the extent that Mattingly was. I was born in 74' so I was old enough to see how Mattingly was portrayed in the mid-80's. I would say in 85-87 Donny was the most common choice when it came to media opinions about who the best player in baseball was. Mcgriff never had the same amount of press that Mattingly did and (rightly or wrongly) never generated the same amount of buzz. You were probably slightly too young to really remember how Mattingly was, but in 85-87 period it was commonly thought that he was the next true Yankee great, above the level of Reggie or Winfield, someone who might go down in history with Mantle and Dimaggio.

Bill James wrote an article in the 88' abstract called rain delay where he chose who he thought the best player in baseball was. He starts it out by saying something along the lines of Mattingly being the guy who everyone thinks is the best(he eventually chose Wade Boggs). This is part of the reason Mattingly has as much support for the hall as he does. People in my generation and older remember when Don was widely considered the best in the game. I do not think I ever watched a Yankees game in the mid-80's where the anouncers did not at least once mention Mattingly and add something like "many feel he is the best player in the game today." I do not have any way of knowing, but I would bet that Mattingly's jersey had to be the top selling one in baseball back then. As a Red Sox fan living in New York it always bugged me that I could not open up the sports section without reading something about Donny being baseball's best. It got really tedious to have that shoved down my throat again and again. In 1986 when Don and Wade were competing for the batting title all my Yankee fan buddies would chide me, saying that even though Wade won the crown, Don also hit 31 bombs, 50 doubles, and drove in a ton of runs, making him obviously better than Wade. In the late 80's early 90's Mcgriff and Will Clark were thought of as the best in the game at first, but neither of them ever received the level of press Donny did in the mid 1980's. Around 86' if you stated an opinion that Mattingly would, by the end of his career rank with Gehrig/Foxx you would find many in agreement. Around that time, if you were to state that Mattingly would not go into the HOF you would have been laughed out of the room. He was in the position of being both perceived as baseball's best nationally, and playing in New York, which increased his popularity and profile exponentially.


I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I think one of the main flaws in adjusted stats, even comparing "peers" is that they don't take into consideration (at least from what I know) when they happened. McGriff's prime was before the offensive explosion, and by the time it did happen, McGriff had already been playing for a decade and was starting to decline, all very natural. As a result, I don't think he benifetted from it nearly as much as others did. In other words, had his peak come later, I think his numbers would have looked A LOT more like Palmeiro's (at least) then they do now. I honestly don't think McGriff was helped by his era nearly to the extent that his adjusted stats say he was.


You really hit the nail on the head. Mcgriff is someone who may well be the most shortchanged out of anyone by the steroid era. He did have a natural peak, and if not for juicers like Palmeiro I suspect he would be a no-doubt HOF selection. He really was an outsanding player, maybe top 5 from 88-93. I think you are very accurate when you say his numbers may have looked like Raffy's if his peak had come afew years later.

[dl4060]

Really, there's not much difference between McGriff and Mattingly's peak. Mattingly is horrifically overrated because of the triple crown statistics.

I think there is a good chance McGriff would get more support if he was a Yankee.

I think this is absolutely true. At the time the only stats people ever mentioned were the triple crown ones. Mattingly's triple crown stats were great, and he drove in a ton of runs. In all likelihood I do not think Barry Bonds would have won as many of his MVP awards back then, because back then people voted based on who led the league in RBI. Mattingly certainly was great from 84-87, but he was overrated.

[digglahhh]

Mattingly is the second most deserving 1B on the outside who played for a New York team in the mid 80's...:D

[Cougar]

DL's post (3 above this one) is absolutely true. Mattingly had a superhero-aura from roughly 1985-1987.

[538280]

I think this is absolutely true. At the time the only stats people ever mentioned were the triple crown ones. Mattingly's triple crown stats were great, and he drove in a ton of runs. In all likelihood I do not think Barry Bonds would have won as many of his MVP awards back then, because back then people voted based on who led the league in RBI. Mattingly certainly was great from 84-87, but he was overrated.

Yeah, definitely. In the late 70s and through most of the 80s it seemed the BBWAA had an extreme infatuation with RBIs. The ridiculously overblown repuatation of Jim Rice as "the most feared hitter in baseball" comes entirely from that. Dale Murphy's two MVPs were largly because of that. He won over much more deserving players (but with less RBIs) Tim Raines and Mike Schmidt. Mattingly stole an MVP in 1985 from his teammate, Rickey Henderson. But the real outrage came in 1987, when Andre Dawson and George Bell won the MVP. The big deal with Dawson was that he played for a last place team, but that doesn't even both me so much. What bothers me is that Dawson just wasn't that special a player in 1987. Neither one were probably among the top 10 players in their league, but the BBWAA was unable to look past RBIs and gave them both MVPs. George Bell over Alan Trammell was in particular a huge joke.

It is ironic that in that era of RBIs being all that mattered, the two best leadoff men of all time (Rickey Henderson and Tim Raines) were in their peaks. Both were ridiclously underrated because of the sportswriters inability to look past RBI.

[538280]

Mattingly is the second most deserving 1B on the outside who played for a New York team in the mid 80's...:D

IMO, Mattingly was the 5th most HOF deserving player on his own team (behind Henderson, Winfield, Niekro and Randolph), and the 8th most deserving in New York (plus Hernandez, Carter, and Strawberry from the Mets).

That's the way I see it, but I could even conceivably see a case for him being the 11th most deserving player in New York in the mid 80s, behind Guidry, Foster, and Gooden plus the 8 I mentioned.

[leecemark]

--The 70s and 80s were no different than any other era in respect to RBI. They have always been wildly overvalued and the players who get lots of them overrated.

[538280]

--The 70s and 80s were no different than any other era in respect to RBI. They have always been wildly overvalued and the players who get lots of them overrated.

Definitely true. Maybe RBIs weren't any more overrated in the 80s, but it just seemed the MVP choices in that era particularly reflected their overratedness.

[Brad Harris]

--The 70s and 80s were no different than any other era in respect to RBI. They have always been wildly overvalued and the players who get lots of them overrated.

Tony Perez comes to mind.

[dl4060]

--The 70s and 80s were no different than any other era in respect to RBI. They have always been wildly overvalued and the players who get lots of them overrated.

I think there is no question RBI were more highly thought of in previous eras then they are today. RBI leaders won ten of the seventeen non-pitcher MVP awards from 80-89', and only three from 95-05'. You often hear television analysts mentioning OBP and OPS now, whereas that was very rare in the 80's. It really used to seem as if the MVP usually went to the RBI leader. In the 70's RBI leaders won eight of the nineteen non-pitcher MVP's. The writers still make bad decisions, like both awards in 1998, but I hear far more talk on tv about other more meaningful stats. I did not watch baseball before the 80's, but I would expect RBI were similarly overvalued then. eight of the seventeen non-pitchers who won the award in the 60's also won the RBI crown. Basically in those decades the RBI leader won the MVP about half the time when it was awarded to a position player.

[Lindseynelson]

I really think that he and some others neeed to be re evaluated.
The knock on Fred is he was so so in MVP voting,he was rarely a top 2 or 3 in categories etc.
Given that the very players that were consistently above him are the ones being lambasted for steroid use and having inflated numbers to go with their arms shouldn't Fred and his , to this point, untainted numbers benefit from his adherence to the rules?
If we are not to take some numbers seriously how can we knock others based on seasonal top 5's etc?
Just a thought.Any ideas?

[Yankwood]

I really think that he and some others neeed to be re evaluated.
The knock on Fred is he was so so in MVP voting,he was rarely a top 2 or 3 in categories etc.
Given that the very players that were consistently above him are the ones being lambasted for steroid use and having inflated numbers to go with their arms shouldn't Fred and his , to this point, untainted numbers benefit from his adherence to the rules?
If we are not to take some numbers seriously how can we knock others based on seasonal top 5's etc?
Just a thought.Any ideas?Your point about those in front of him having drug inflated numbers is an excellent one.

The true crime in all of this is that everyone on these lists now gets thrown into the "Gee, I wonder if he....?", and it's never going to be fair to those who were clean.

So, if those around or in front of him were tainted and he wasn't, I have to jump him up a bit. But it's just a shame we don't really know. I mean, what if Fred....? Hey, you never know. Palmeiro fooled me, why can't a hundred more of these guys.

[Alibi Ike]

Your point about those in front of him having drug inflated numbers is an excellent one.

The true crime in all of this is that everyone on these lists now gets thrown into the "Gee, I wonder if he....?", and it's never going to be fair to those who were clean.

So, if those around or in front of him were tainted and he wasn't, I have to jump him up a bit. But it's just a shame we don't really know. I mean, what if Fred....? Hey, you never know. Palmeiro fooled me, why can't a hundred more of these guys.

Its a shame that no player from the past decade or so should be above suspicion, but it makes sense. However, comparing Palmeiro to McGriff isn't fair to Mcgriff. Palmeiro took a few years before discovering his home run power--McGriff was putting up 30 homers immediately (and never really got "bigger" or anything). McGriff was like the best guy ever to draft if you played Micro League Baseball.

[digglahhh]

Just for the record, I support McGriff. The other question is whether the second tier pitchers, the stars but not immortals, like Mussina will benefit from pitching in this era.

[DoubleX]

I support McGriff. I think people forget that just before the power surge of the mid-90s occurred, McGriff was considered one of the premiere and most feared sluggers in the game. When the surge happened, McGriff stayed level and consistent instead of jumping. He was remarkably consistent and the skewed numbers of the mid 90s going on forward make it hard to put McGriff's career into perspective. However, I actually believe that his consistency, that started before the juiced era really took off, should be to his credit. I for one, would really like to know what real baseball and real statistics look like from that period, and I think McGriff is the real deal.

[Freakshow]

I support McGriff. I think people forget that just before the power surge of the mid-90s occurred, McGriff was considered one of the premiere and most feared sluggers in the game. When the surge happened, McGriff stayed level and consistent instead of jumping. He was remarkably consistent and the skewed numbers of the mid 90s going on forward make it hard to put McGriff's career into perspective. However, I actually believe that his consistency, that started before the juiced era really took off, should be to his credit. I for one, would really like to know what real baseball and real statistics look like from that period, and I think McGriff is the real deal.
I don't know. If you look at McGriff's career pattern of OPS+ it's a little strange:

1987 130
1988 157
1989 161
1990 157

1991 147
1992 165
1993 142
1994 157

1995 120
1996 119
1997 106
1998 108

1999 142
2000 109
2001 142
2002 125

2003 100
2004 53

A nice steady decline through 1998, age 34. Then a Bonds-like late career resurgence. Strange.:eek:

[Sean Casey]

I don't know. If you look at McGriff's career pattern of OPS+ it's a little strange:

The increase in 1999 is slightly suspicious, but it's not a dramatic enough increase to really scream "steroids." You look at the numbers of guys like Bonds , Boone, and Palmeiro, they didn't hit career highs in home runs until toward the end of their careers. McGriff on the other hand had been putting up similar numbers earlier in his career.

I'm still not sure that he's a hall of famer, but I think that, more likely than not, he was clean.

[DoubleX]

I don't know. If you look at McGriff's career pattern of OPS+ it's a little strange:

1987 130
1988 157
1989 161
1990 157

1991 147
1992 165
1993 142
1994 157

1995 120
1996 119
1997 106
1998 108

1999 142
2000 109
2001 142
2002 125

2003 100
2004 53

A nice steady decline through 1998, age 34. Then a Bonds-like late career resurgence. Strange.:eek:

I wouldn't call it a Bonds like career surge, and it wasn't like McGriff was over the hill, he was only 35 in 1999. I admit though, the steepness of his final decline, which coincided with testing, is a little suspicious (as it is with many players who suddently and dramatically dropped off in 03/04), but then again, McGriff was 39 and 40, and it wasn't like he was dropping from gargantuan levels that have rarely been visited before by players at age 38. I think his actual production in 01 and 02, at ages 37 and 38, were the kind of seasons we've seen before from good veterans. In 01 he hit .306, 31, 102, and in 02 he hit .273, 30, 103. I don't see anything too suspicious about those numbers and its not too dissimilar from what guys like Dave Winfield and Eddie Murray were doing at that age.

[Freakshow]

I wouldn't call it a Bonds like career surge, and it wasn't like McGriff was over the hill, he was only 35 in 1999. I admit though, the steepness of his final decline, which coincided with testing, is a little suspicious (as it is with many players who suddently and dramatically dropped off in 03/04), but then again, McGriff was 39 and 40, and it wasn't like he was dropping from gargantuan levels that have rarely been visited before by players at age 38. I think his actual production in 01 and 02, at ages 37 and 38, were the kind of seasons we've seen before from good veterans. In 01 he hit .306, 31, 102, and in 02 he hit .273, 30, 103. I don't see anything too suspicious about those numbers and its not too dissimilar from what guys like Dave Winfield and Eddie Murray were doing at that age.
Yes, there are alternative explanations. But, his 30 homer seasons at ages 37-38 were remarkable at the time. Only Ruth and Aaron had previously had back-to-back 30-homer seasons at those ages. And while his overall production at those ages was not unique, I don't think anyone else who was that good in their late 30's had established such a mediocre level of performance in their early 30's.

[yankillaz]

The Crime Dog was one of the best pure power hitter i've ever seen. Since his glory days in my beloved B'Jays, going thru the Padres and finishing in the Braves.

After that i never followe his career quite thoroughly, but it is safe to say that his power number are steroid free.

[DoubleX]

Yes, there are alternative explanations. But, his 30 homer seasons at ages 37-38 were remarkable at the time. Only Ruth and Aaron had previously had back-to-back 30-homer seasons at those ages. And while his overall production at those ages was not unique, I don't think anyone else who was that good in their late 30's had established such a mediocre level of performance in their early 30's.

I'm sure there would be more members of that club if they played in the 90s as well, given the small parks, juiced balls, and greater stress on strength training in general. I also wouldn't call McGriff "mediocre" in his early 30s. Sure his OPS+ was down, but his power numbers remained pretty consistent. Here's a look at McGriff's homeruns and slugging percentage by age:

23: 20
24: 34
25: 36
26: 35
27: 31
28: 35
29: 37
30: 34
31: 27
32: 28
33: 22
34: 19
35: 32
36: 37
37: 31
38: 30
39: 13

Yeah, there was a slight dip there in his early 30s, but it certainly not a dramatic fall of the charts, and his boost at age 35 wasn't that dramatic either. It could just be said that he regained form or remade his swing. Who knows, but he wouldn't be the first player to be a very consistent 30 homerun hitter who had a small dip in mid career only to go up a little near the end before a final decline. If McGriff suddenly started hitting over 40 homeruns at age 35 after a few down years, then I'd be suspicious, but McGriff's numbers are actually very modest for the era and there really aren't any dramatic shifts.

[Freakshow]

Here is my take on McGriff, from an article I wrote after the 2002 season:

Numbers in parentheses are: age at 7/1/03, career HR opening 2003, and established HR level. The estimated chances are figured using a modified version of Bill James’ "Favorite Toy" formula.

Fred McGriff (39.7, 478, 28.9) - Four years ago I had written off his chances for 500. McGriff was 35 years old after his fourth straight year of a decline in HR rate. He was still 142 homers short, coming off years of 28-22-19, and seemed to have one foot out the retirement door. However, he found the power switch and just bashed 30+ homers at ages 37 and 38, joining Babe Ruth 1932-33 and Hank Aaron 1971-72 as the only players to accomplish that feat. Now he’s away from the friendly confines of Wrigley Field (the Dodgers have him), he’s not yet a lock for 500. Est. chance for 500: 90%.

The offensive explosion, which you mentioned, helped to hide the sharp decline in McGriff's game. OPS+ shows him with marks of 106 and 108 in 1997-98. That's a below average performance for a firstbaseman. It looked like he would soon lose his job as a major league regular.

Somehow, he turned things around and made a run at 500.

[DoubleX]

Here is my take on McGriff, from an article I wrote after the 2002 season:

Numbers in parentheses are: age at 7/1/03, career HR opening 2003, and established HR level. The estimated chances are figured using a modified version of Bill James’ "Favorite Toy" formula.

Fred McGriff (39.7, 478, 28.9) - Four years ago I had written off his chances for 500. McGriff was 35 years old after his fourth straight year of a decline in HR rate. He was still 142 homers short, coming off years of 28-22-19, and seemed to have one foot out the retirement door. However, he found the power switch and just bashed 30+ homers at ages 37 and 38, joining Babe Ruth 1932-33 and Hank Aaron 1971-72 as the only players to accomplish that feat. Now he’s away from the friendly confines of Wrigley Field (the Dodgers have him), he’s not yet a lock for 500. Est. chance for 500: 90%.

The offensive explosion, which you mentioned, helped to hide the sharp decline in McGriff's game. OPS+ shows him with marks of 106 and 108 in 1997-98. That's a below average performance for a firstbaseman. It looked like he would soon lose his job as a major league regular.

Somehow, he turned things around and made a run at 500.

His mid-carere decline and then resurgence are still not that suspicious, because neither was that dramatic, and the small mid-career declien could very well just be a bump in the road that many players exhibit. Up and downs do happen. But we can each interpret the stats as we want, and I don't fault you for your interpretation. I too tend to be suspicious of just about every player of the last 15-20 years. It's unfortunate, but that's what happens I guess.

[538280]

I support McGriff. A very good player for a long time and a great player in his best seasons. A HOFer in a Paul Molitor/Dave Winfield kind of way. He doesn't have quite the longevity and consistency that made Molitor and Winfield surefire though.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I support McGriff. A very good player for a long time and a great player in his best seasons. A HOFer in a Paul Molitor/Dave Winfield kind of way. He doesn't have quite the longevity and consistency that made Molitor and Winfield surefire though.

This is a pretty accurate assessment of McGriff. He was the second best 1B in the NL, behind Bagwell, which is no disgrace.

[The Dude]

Yeah, there was a slight dip there in his early 30s, but it certainly not a dramatic fall of the charts, and his boost at age 35 wasn't that dramatic either. It could just be said that he regained form or remade his swing.

I would say you have found the answer, and that's something I have supported a while for why McGriff suddenly resurged.

Reasons why McGriff jumped suddenly from 1998-1999.
1. One must believe that 1997 would have just been an off year for McGriff. He switched leagues in 1998 to the American League, so naturally he wouldn't know the pitchers nearly as well as he would of in the National league, where he spent the previous 7 seasons. This would drop his power numbers farther than before, as he wouldn't be nearly as good. In 1999, he was getting used to the pitchers, and was able to put in a few more good seasons and he went back to the NL where he recognized most pitchers, allowing him toi have a good year.

2.Look at his walk totals. 1993-1997 he was below 90, whereas he was over 90 the previous 4 years. This in my opinion, is due to possibley changing his swing to put up larger HR totals. His OPS+ from '93-'97 (even excluding strike years) is far lower than the four years previous. I believe after 97, he changed his swing and mentality partially, to try to get to a previous form.

3.He was the most dangerous hitter in that Tampa Bay lineup, which also helped his walk totals. This would obviously boost his confidence. "These guys aren't pitching to me becuase I'm too good.". Once again, a mental thing.

Once you get past that, I think we have to understand McGriff was one of the best players in the leagues before the juiced ball and steroids were as rampant as some believe.

I have him as the 14th best 1st-basemen of all time. That's with Thomas ranked as a DH and Allen and Killebrew both ranked as 1st basemen, Banks ranked at SS, and Carew at 2B.

[Lindseynelson]

his two late season upticks remind me of Willie McCovey.
He refused to switch to a lighter bat out of some pride issue I suppose.Bavasi of the Pods was the GM and told Sticks supplier to make his bats 2 ounces lighter but printed the same. Stick had no idea and went on to win the Comeback Player of the Year.
Sometimes the answer is to adapt not to juice..

[jpenrod]

I think it is also interesting to note that the '97 and '98 seasons in question he was 3rd on his team in HR (24, 23, 22) and 1st in HR (next was 17, and 11) Respectively, he also lead the D-Rays in OPS+ that year. I only bring this up because it is completely possible those down years were the result of external forces (pitchers not pitching to him) and various other things (1997 was the first season in Turner field which saw a sharp drop off in power for ATL that year, 1998 was a return to the AL and switching leagues often effects players for one year). I think there is more to it that simply a natural decline.

[switch_hitter]

Fred McGriff was a very good baseball player, but I'll step out and say I don't think he was a Hall of Famer. He was dominant, yes, but so are many players any given year, every year, at some point in time. He was consistent, yes, but I wouldn't put every consistent player in the Hall of Fame just for being consistent. It seems that many here would put him in because he is in their top 15 first basemen or whatever, but that list will change over time, next week, in an hour, whatever. As I intimated in the Robbie Alomar thread, I don't see why someone should be inducted only on the merits that they are in the top 15 [whatever position] of all time on your subjective lists. It is the Hall of Fame, and it is for those transcendent and dominant names that have graced the history of this storied game. Is Larry Walker a Hall of Famer because of his remarkable consistency and good defense? No, but he still was a very good ballplayer who anyone would enjoy to have on their team. How about Jim Edmonds? Shawn Green? Leaving McGriff and co., and others, out of the Hall is not a knock on their careers but should speak to the sanctity of what this honor stands for.

Perhaps we could propose an All-Star wing to honor such players in a 'tiered' Hall of Fame.

[The Dude]

I mentioned where I have Fred McGriff rnaked just because I do that. Rankings are popular here.

Fred McGriff was consistently dominant. You're right. We shouldn't put every dominating player in the hall of fame. Like Denny McLain. We shouldn't put every consistent player in the hall of fame either, like Bill Buckner. But if you're consistently dominant, I don't see a problem. Plus, I believe in a inclusive hall. So most consistently dominant players and a number of shorter peak guys make it in my opinion.

[Freakshow]

It is the Hall of Fame, and it is for those transcendent and dominant names that have graced the history of this storied game.
This is a common misconception among those newer to these boards; the mere fact that there are now 225 players in the HOF should demonstrate otherwise.:rolleyes:

Unless you employ a strange definition of "transcendent and dominant".:crazy

[jpenrod]

Fred McGriff was a very good baseball player, but I'll step out and say I don't think he was a Hall of Famer. He was dominant, yes, but so are many players any given year, every year, at some point in time. He was consistent, yes, but I wouldn't put every consistent player in the Hall of Fame just for being consistent. It seems that many here would put him in because he is in their top 15 first basemen or whatever, but that list will change over time, next week, in an hour, whatever. As I intimated in the Robbie Alomar thread, I don't see why someone should be inducted only on the merits that they are in the top 15 [whatever position] of all time on your subjective lists. It is the Hall of Fame, and it is for those transcendent and dominant names that have graced the history of this storied game. Is Larry Walker a Hall of Famer because of his remarkable consistency and good defense? No, but he still was a very good ballplayer who anyone would enjoy to have on their team. How about Jim Edmonds? Shawn Green? Leaving McGriff and co., and others, out of the Hall is not a knock on their careers but should speak to the sanctity of what this honor stands for.

Perhaps we could propose an All-Star wing to honor such players in a 'tiered' Hall of Fame.

Perhaps Jim Edmonds and Larry Walker were not the best examples you could give because many here will argue they do belong in the HOF and most HOF monitoring systems would support Walker. Shawn Green has never shown the same level of consistency that McGriff had throughout his career. You mention that a player does not deserve to be in the HOF just because they are currently on your list of top 15 at their position, so then what criteria would you use? at some point there has to be some basis for admitance into the HOF, either because at the time of voting the voter felt he was one of the best or because a player achieved a certain milestone the voters deem Hall worthy. It seems like your approach would keep out a lot of people. I understand it is the Hall of Fame and you do not want any Joe Schmoe in there, but the reality is that as time progresses the Hall is going to get bigger unless we just stop electing people. part of the process is to set a time limit so the players are judged compared to their contemporaries and not necessarily those that came before or after. It is a museum that is there to hold the history of this game and the players that were some of the best in their era or made unmistakable contributions to the game. I would suggest that if you want to make a special wing in the Hall, it should not be a wing of "all-stars" but a wing for those that transcend the generations of the game, the elite of the elite.

I think the problem that McGriff faces is that he played during a transitionary period of baseball. If he had started 5 years earlier then I think more people would consider him a HOFer compared to his contemporaries. 5 years later and they would not. unfortunatly he crosses the plane and no one really knows who to compare him to.

[jalbright]

If there's actual proof (as opposed to suspicions) of other HOF candidate types among his contemporaries who juiced, I might revisit the issue of Fred McGriff. However, until or unless that proof is there, I'm not about to establish a precedent for getting a guy in by throwing mud at lots of other guys, at least some of whom surely don't deserve it. As it is, I see McGriff as a tad shy of the mark, and unless we get Palmeiro or Barry Bonds-type proof on more of these guys, that's where he'll stay for me. His peak win shares (top three and best five consecutive) as well as his performances in black and gray ink and MVP voting combine to sink him in my book.

Jim Albright

[switch_hitter]

Perhaps Jim Edmonds and Larry Walker were not the best examples you could give because many here will argue they do belong in the HOF and most HOF monitoring systems would support Walker. Shawn Green has never shown the same level of consistency that McGriff had throughout his career. You mention that a player does not deserve to be in the HOF just because they are currently on your list of top 15 at their position, so then what criteria would you use? at some point there has to be some basis for admitance into the HOF, either because at the time of voting the voter felt he was one of the best or because a player achieved a certain milestone the voters deem Hall worthy. It seems like your approach would keep out a lot of people. I understand it is the Hall of Fame and you do not want any Joe Schmoe in there, but the reality is that as time progresses the Hall is going to get bigger unless we just stop electing people. part of the process is to set a time limit so the players are judged compared to their contemporaries and not necessarily those that came before or after. It is a museum that is there to hold the history of this game and the players that were some of the best in their era or made unmistakable contributions to the game. I would suggest that if you want to make a special wing in the Hall, it should not be a wing of "all-stars" but a wing for those that transcend the generations of the game, the elite of the elite.

I think the problem that McGriff faces is that he played during a transitionary period of baseball. If he had started 5 years earlier then I think more people would consider him a HOFer compared to his contemporaries. 5 years later and they would not. unfortunatly he crosses the plane and no one really knows who to compare him to.


Yes, I am of the mold that subscribes to a more exclusive Hall. And I really don't care to allow people in who I don't feel are Hall of Famers just because a 'precedent' has been broken or set. Likewise, I don't have an official vote so it's all just speculation and kicks. Besides, there will be plenty of other players from this era inducted, so the Hall will grow larger and please don't think that I don't believe anybody should ever enter the hallowed Hall. It's just--and I don't know if I'm not phrasing it properly, or if you and others just outright disagree with me, which is of course fine (you're not going to change my mind, nor I yours on the matter)--but from reading these posts it does seem that the prevailing reason for his proposed induction is because he is one of the top 15 (as of now) 1st basemen, based on evaluation of a few overall stats. This obsession with ranking-determined Hall selections (based largely on stats) bothers me because I believe it obscures and undermines many legitimate players, takes away some of the romanticism of the game (Hall of Fame, not stat/rate accumulation), and will invariably change with the passage of time.

Granted, McGriff played in a different era (his prime years), and one that I am admittedly not immediately familar with, and perhaps I am using limited methods of evaluation and I need to learn more. Fine, I am always open to that and am glad to do so. But based on the info I've read, and understand, from previous posts in this thread about these very concerns there has not been enough to convince me that McGriff is a Hall of Famer. Again, very good, but not Hall of Famer.

As to Larry Walker, I don't believe he will make the Hall, nor would I give him a vote, even though he was a very good player in his career, and that is not influenced by how many on these boards think otherwise or not. With that being said, if he made the Hall that would not cause me to mutiny--he just, like I said about McGriff, would not get my vote. That's the beauty of the voting process: you can vote one way, he can another, and I yet another.

If I come across as bitter or overtly defensive I apologize, as that is not my intent. I'm just seeking to clarify my position on matters such as this. Thanks.

[Sockeye]

I'm sure there would be more members of that club if they played in the 90s as well, given the small parks, juiced balls, and greater stress on strength training in general. I also wouldn't call McGriff "mediocre" in his early 30s. Sure his OPS+ was down, but his power numbers remained pretty consistent. Here's a look at McGriff's homeruns and slugging percentage by age:

23: 20
24: 34
25: 36
26: 35
27: 31
28: 35
29: 37
30: 34
31: 27
32: 28
33: 22
34: 19
35: 32
36: 37
37: 31
38: 30
39: 13

Yeah, there was a slight dip there in his early 30s, but it certainly not a dramatic fall of the charts, and his boost at age 35 wasn't that dramatic either. It could just be said that he regained form or remade his swing. Who knows, but he wouldn't be the first player to be a very consistent 30 homerun hitter who had a small dip in mid career only to go up a little near the end before a final decline. If McGriff suddenly started hitting over 40 homeruns at age 35 after a few down years, then I'd be suspicious, but McGriff's numbers are actually very modest for the era and there really aren't any dramatic shifts.

It should be 27 at age 36 not 37

[Sockeye]

I'm probably Fred McGriff biggest supporter on BF. It would be an absolute crime not to let the crime dog in the HOF. He is quite possibly one the the top 5 most consistant players in baseball history. I don't think there is an ice cubes chance in hell that McGriff ever use steroids.

Some are pointing out his career OPS+ and HR totals looking for suspicious numbers. Pointing to his 99-01 numbers as suspicious after his declining numbers thru 98. All one must to eliminate such anxiety is to examine other great numbers. In nearly ever case of 400+ home run members they had a power resurgence towards the end of their careers. Nobody suspects them most of using sterioids. Did Aaron use in 73? Mays in 70? Robinson in 73? Jackson in 85? T.Williams in 60? Banks in 68? Mathews in 65? Ott in 44? Murray in 93? Stargell in 79? Yastrzemski in 77? Ripken in 96? Evans in 85?

All of those seasons were out of the norm considering their career downward trends. They weren't using neither did McGriff.

[lovethegame]

I see folks knocking those who it seems took roids.
I see many of the same that are knocking those folks numbers saying Freddie "doesn't stack up vs peers".
No MVP,never top this or that

Which is it?
He has as many hrs as Lou (493) and there seems to be no PE question so why isn't he a sure thing.
If the other players numbers are tainted does that not enhance Freds?

[Brad Harris]

I see folks knocking those who it seems took roids.
I see many of the same that are knocking those folks numbers saying Freddie "doesn't stack up vs peers".
No MVP,never top this or that

Which is it?
He has as many hrs as Lou (493) and there seems to be no PE question so why isn't he a sure thing.
If the other players numbers are tainted does that not enhance Freds?

Part of that is a lack of a comprehensive viewpoint on the part of people thinking about things. We tend to look at candidates on an individual basis and sometimes lose the context.

One might wonder if Fred McGriff's career is the actual talent level of a non-steroids Rafael Palmeiro? Not sure how accurate that statement is, but that's the kind of thing I'd be wondering if I were spending time reviewing his case. I'm inclined to vote for him, personally.

[Los Bravos]

Personally, I was hoping that one of the things that emerged from the fallout of the steroids controversy would be that voters who dismissed guys like Dawson, Rice and even Fred because McGwire, Palmeiro and Sosa sailed past them would take a second look at their numbers in light of the fact that those latter three guys are all tainted now, in most people's minds. So far, that doesn't seem to be happening.

[John Shoemaker]

I hope Fred gets into the HOF when he is eligible. By that time we'll probably find out that Fred had to face a lot of pitchers that were taking steroids.

[The Commissioner]

I have been saying this for years. It's a completely unfair double standard. Fred Mcgriff accomplished all he did in an era where he was one of the few guys not on the juice. It's like people always point to Shawn Green and say he's nowhere near Hall of Fame worthy. While I don't think Green has anywhere near as strong a case as McGriff does, look at who the people were ahead of Green on the leader boards every year. How much better would both he and McGriff would look had they not been been bumped down a few slots on the leader boards year after year by those on steroids?

[jalbright]

I'm merging a lot of Fred McGriff threads in this forum.

[Baseball Guru]

He ranks ok on the HOF standards on reference:

HOF Standards: Batting - 47.9 (85) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 100.0 (145) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses

[PVNICK]

How much do we want to weigh the era that McGriff played in against him? I'd like for someone to please give me a definitive answer so that I can know how to weigh his stats in his disfavor. Just on the surface if we compare his stats to a few other players in Cooperstown it seems difficult to see why McGriff should not be there amongst them:

McGriff .284 BA, .509 Slg, 2490 hits, 493 HR, 1550 RBI
McCovey .270 BA, .509 Slg, 2211 hits, 521 HR, 1555 RBI
Stargell .270 BA, .515 Slg, 2282 hits, 475 HR, 1540 RBI
Billy Williams .290 BA, .492 Slg, 2711 hits, 426 HR, 1475 RBI
Matthews .271 BA, .509 Slg, 2315 hits, 512 HR, 1453 RBI
Banks .274 BA, .500 Slg, 2583 hits, 512 HR, 1636 RBI

I might possibly buy that McGriff is not as worthy as any of those other individuals on that list, but is he really significantly less worthy? Does he really not belong among that same group for his career. Why not?
Of course all those guys played during the 60s which was a pitchers era, whereas McGriff came along 2 expansions later and witnessed a third during his career. (to be fair Williams played until 75 or 76, McCovvey until 1980 and Stargell until @ 1983).

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

What are your thoughts on Fred McGriff as a Hall of Fame candidate? A fairly one-dimensional player, home runs are his ticket (although winning a World Series and being a part of that Braves dynasty won't hurt). I think 500 HRs would've sealed the deal for him, but, unfortunately, he couldn't quite get there and retired with 493. Other than Gehrig, who, unlike McGriff, was an obvious HOF selection, no one else has come up for election who was so close to 500 that you might as well give it to them (I see no real difference in McGriff's 493 and Eddie Murray's 504). One thing that will hurt McGriff (unfairly in my opinion) is that he will be compared to all of the sluggers of the post 1995 home run era, when the truth is that his peak came well before that. I would say his best seasons relative to the league all came between '88 and '94. His detractors will point to the fact that he never hit 40 HR in a season, but the truth is that he led his league in HR twice and finished in the top five a total of seven times. He just did all of this in the late 80s and early 90s when 35-40 was potentially a league leading total. Furthermore, even though people say that 500 has been the magic number to get in the Hall, it's actually 400. The only eligable players with 400 HR who haven't gotten in are Mark McGwire, Jose Canseco, Dave Kingman, and Darrell Evans. The first two are alleged steroid users and the other two have sub .250 batting averages. I don't think that 400 HR and a decent batting average will remain a guarantee for induction after the HR explosion we've seen over the last ten years, but it has been one in the past. I think 500 will become the new 400, meaning that 500 HRs coupled with a good batting average will result in eventual induction. McGriff meets that batting average criterion, being a .284 lifetime hitter. That being said, I'd vote for McGriff and I hope the writers do too.

[SamtheBravesFan]

The writers won't do it. He is pretty much going to get Trammelled. Besides, people are debating whether or not that Jim Thome is going to go into the Hall of Fame. McGriff's not going to get in.

[Brooklyn]

A compelling post

I'm on the fence about him. he always seemed to be a very good but not great player. but was he "very good" long enough to warrant HOF induction?

Hi MVP showing was a little weak, with his best finishes as a 4th and two 6ths. Only 5 all star games is not that impressive, either. While not definitive, those two recognitions point to what the general feeling of him was while he was playing, which is consistent with "good but not great"

His pluses are his homeruns (currently 24th all time) and RBIs (currently 39th all time). I agree that his home runs totals are light considering some of his best year were pre-steroid era, but 8 full years after 1994, the first half of which was in the prime of his career, so I'm not inclined to give him too much extra credit

I think if he hadn't gotten those 7 homeruns he'd be in. I agree that that shouldn't make a difference, but I think it ultimately will.

I think he falls just short for me, particularly since there are better first basemen out there, but I wouldn't lose sleep if he got in

[PVNICK]

McGriff suffers a bit by being seen as hanging around to get 500. That's the lingering image in a lot of ways. Writers will not remember how he helped the Braves win a division after coming over in a trade and was pretty much the dominant 1B from the late 80s to the mid 90s in his league if not in all of MLB. I think he is marginal.

[jalbright]

Merged threads again.

[philipthegreat]

McGriff suffers a bit by being seen as hanging around to get 500. That's the lingering image in a lot of ways. Writers will not remember how he helped the Braves win a division after coming over in a trade and was pretty much the dominant 1B from the late 80s to the mid 90s in his league if not in all of MLB. I think he is marginal.

just like Early Winn except he didn't make the milestone.

[Chickazoola]

just like Early Winn except he didn't make the milestone.

300 Wins is far more impressive than 500 HR's though.

[thebabestillgreatest]

good points above, esp. by sam. to me a hall of famer has to have one or two mvp-level years to make the hall. the exceptions are super-steady guys like eddie murray and don sutton who stick it out and reach career milestones that give the writers no choice. maybe if he got to 500 dingers. kind of like blyleven who got to 286 wins and seems to have no chance. his character is great and as stated earlier it won't make me mad if he gets in. plus the hall could use some cuts like guys from the vets committee in the 60's-80's. though this will never happen.

[digglahhh]

good points above, esp. by sam. to me a hall of famer has to have one or two mvp-level years to make the hall. the exceptions are super-steady guys like eddie murray and don sutton who stick it out and reach career milestones that give the writers no choice.

Actually, Murray is a pretty good comparison. What makes Murray one of those super-steady though not MVP level stars and not McGriff?

Sure, Murray has the 3,000 and the 500, and McGriff doesn't. But, Murray had a substantially longer career than McGriff. Plus, many think that if McGriff did hit 500, that would be enough.

I don't know how hitting sticking around until he hit 7 homers when the guy was obviously cooked is something that could tip the scale.

[Frank]

McGriff wasn't the most dominant First-Baseman of his career,and was just an avg. fielding-1B. But he was a very steady and consistent player-you knew what to expect from him year after year.I think what he did from 1988-2002 will put him in the HOF......

__*1988-2002* Avg Per Year{15 seasons}__
Hits-155
HR-31
RBI-97
AVG-.288
BB-80

[philkid3]

Holy crap! I expected to be in the minority when I said "yes."

[Bravesfan1984]

I would think it would be great if he got in but I just don't see it. He had only one top 5 mvp year, had an obp over 400 twice, and is only a career 284 hitter. While these are good numbers they are not enough to propel him into the Hall.

[RuthMayBond]

I would think it would be great if he got in but I just don't see it. He had only one top 5 mvp yearNo, he's only been VOTED into the top 5 in MVP once, there is a difference

<had an obp over 400 twice>

His career OBP is higher than ELEVEN HOFers . . .
. . . ONLY among 1B

[Honus Wagner Rules]

good points above, esp. by sam. to me a hall of famer has to have one or two mvp-level years to make the hall. the exceptions are super-steady guys like eddie murray and don sutton who stick it out and reach career milestones that give the writers no choice. maybe if he got to 500 dingers. kind of like blyleven who got to 286 wins and seems to have no chance. his character is great and as stated earlier it won't make me mad if he gets in. plus the hall could use some cuts like guys from the vets committee in the 60's-80's. though this will never happen.

What gets lost about Eddie Murray is that he was a consistent MVP candidate in his prime though he never won the award. From 1980-85 Murray finished 2nd twice, 4th, 5th two times, and 6th. That is very impressive and speaks to how he was viewed by the baseball media.

[Bravesfan1984]

No, he's only been VOTED into the top 5 in MVP once, there is a difference

<had an obp over 400 twice>

His career OBP is higher than ELEVEN HOFers . . .
. . . ONLY among 1B

That is because other HOfers were playing in era's were OBP were lower then they are now. What years did you consider HOF years?

[Captain Cold Nose]

That is because other HOfers were playing in era's were OBP were lower then they are now. What years did you consider HOF years?

We're still waiting for you to define what a "HOF year" is.

[RuthMayBond]

We're still waiting for you to define what a "HOF year" is.:sleepy::sleepy::sleepy::sleepy::sleepy::sleepy : :sleepy: :sleepy::sleepy::sleepy:

[jalbright]

We're still waiting for you to define what a "HOF year" is.

I'm thinking it's about the same as Waiting for Godot, and just as fruitful.

[henrich]

McGriff is 3rd in his era and 15th overall at 1B. Overall he is ahead of Carew and behind Greenberg.

In his era
Palmeiro 12,333
Bagwell 11,606
McGriff 10,948

He should make it. He is in the Gil Hodges area though, it may be a longer wait than he would like.

[SABR Matt]

Nope...McGriff has no place in the HOF. Sorry.

[Bravesfan1984]

We're still waiting for you to define what a "HOF year" is.

to be one of the top 5 players that year meaning top 5 mvp.For a batter it would be hitting at least 300 having an obp over 400 and having over 110 rbis without to many outs(especially strikeouts)

[jalbright]

to be one of the top 5 players that year meaning top 5 mvp.For a batter it would be hitting at least 300 having an obp over 400 and having over 110 rbis without to many outs(especially strikeouts)

What about guys who are top 5 in MVP voting but don't make those standards? Is this an either/or situation, or must a batter do both? How many outs are "too many"? Why do you think strikeouts are so bad? At least they're not double plays. Why are RBI so important? After all, they depend so much on a guy's place in the batting order plus how often his teammates give him the opportunity to drive them in. Why the bright line at .300 BA/ .400 OBP? Do you realize that league averages have varied over time? Is a guy with a .295 average and .395 OBP in a tough park and/or a tough league for offense really less valuable than a guy with a .300 average and .400 slugging percentage in a hitter's haven and/or in a good year for offense? Those questions/comments just scratch the surface of the flaws in what you have written.

[The Splendid Splinter]

What about guys who are top 5 in MVP voting but don't make those standards? Is this an either/or situation, or must a batter do both? How many outs are "too many"? Why do you think strikeouts are so bad? At least they're not double plays. Why are RBI so important? After all, they depend so much on a guy's place in the batting order plus how often his teammates give him the opportunity to drive them in. Why the bright line at .300 BA/ .400 OBP? Do you realize that league averages have varied over time? Is a guy with a .295 average and .395 OBP in a tough park and/or a tough league for offense really less valuable than a guy with a .300 average and .400 slugging percentage in a hitter's haven and/or in a good year for offense? Those questions/comments just scratch the surface of the flaws in what you have written.

Exactly... To me, I think Bravesfan takes "face value/stats" way too much and not go into details of anything else (eras/teams/etc...) or use advance metric, even the basic ones...

He is a "Small Hall" guy, but some of the standards or stats he use for guys who he doesn't think belongs in the HoF... also doesn't follow for guys who he thinks is a HoF as well. Just using this .300 AVG/.400 OBP, A Rod only had 4 of those seasons.... 2 more where he was top 5 for MVP, but didn't make the .300/.400 and a 3rd where he was 6th in MVP. Another one would be Eddie Murray (who I think Bravesfan has him as a HoFer, but correct me if I'm wrong BF)... Murray had 2 seasons of .300/.400 (same as McGriff), but has 4 seasons where he didn't meet that and was in the top 5 in MVP... and also never hit 40 HRs. He also said not too many outs (esp. strikeouts)... How many Ks is too much? A Rod strikes out a bit and then Bagwell as well.

As for me, McGriff is def. borderline for me, but most days I say No to him. I think if he goes in, it'll make the Hall a lot bigger because you'll have to induct several others. If he went in, he would def. be the baseline for a HoF 1B in order to get in. So everyone knows, I'm in between a "Small Hall" and "Big Hall" type of guy with kinda leaning towards the "Small Hall". I think there are quite a few guys in the HoF that I would take out and replace them a few deserving ones so the Hall would be smaller than it is now.

[SABR Matt]

I don't think McGriff is within the top 20 1st basemen of all time...and I don't want to see more than 20 in at any position other than pitchers and outfielders...at least not for a while...so...I just don't see it.

[Cougar]

I would think it would be great if he got in but I just don't see it. He had only one top 5 mvp year, had an obp over 400 twice, and is only a career 284 hitter. While these are good numbers they are not enough to propel him into the Hall.

As soon as this popped up in my mailbox, I just knew it was my friend BravesFan84 plumbing the archives to unearth another dormant thread of a borderline guy favored by most and stirring all kinds of stuff up with an obtuse, incoherent, uninformed, incomprehensible, and self-contradictory series of posts.

It's kind of funny, but you've got to get the joke.

He's a troll -- the trolliest troll to ever trolly troll!

And he's quite a talented one. He's pretty much taken over this forum. It's sheer exhibitionism, but there's a lot of underlying intelligence there. These arguments are brilliantly crafted to baffle and exasperate, and he's got a keen sense of how to press different people's buttons. (You know who you are.)

If you can absorb this fact, and manage not to take the arguments seriously but to accept them in the slyly subversive spirit they're intended, it's actually very entertaining. I've had a blast on more than one occasion playing off his posts. However, it only works if one realizes it's all a grand game.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I'm thinking it's about the same as Waiting for Godot, and just as fruitful.

He said he would come.

[RuthMayBond]

Nope...McGriff has no place in the HOF. Sorry.There you have it :shrug:

[RuthMayBond]

For a batter it would be hitting at least 300 having an obp over 400 and having over 110 rbis without to many outs(especially strikeouts)Wow, HOF years pretty much didn't exist from at least 1906 to 1909, 1965, 1968. Rickey Henderson, Reggie Jackson, Eddie Collins, Mike Schmidt, Harmon Killebrew never even had one (at least Beau Bell did, he just missed having a second). At least Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Joe Morgan managed one each :banghead::banghead: (if we do NOT consider the too many outs/strikeouts problems)

[jalbright]

He said he would come.

Well, we've finally gotten something, though I'm still trying to figure out if it's simply not very deep thought or Cougar's suggestion. If it's a matter of not very deep thought, his unresponsiveness to attempts to educate him mean there is very little practical difference between the two. In either case, if you're not a mod, I'd recommend use of the ignore feature or at least liberal use of salt in dealing with Bravesfan1984's posts (at least in this forum).

[RuthMayBond]

Well, we've finally gotten something, though I'm still trying to figure out if it's simply not very deep thought or Cougar's suggestion. If it's a matter of not very deep thought, his unresponsiveness to attempts to educate him mean there is very little practical difference between the two. In either case, if you're not a mod, I'd recommend use of the ignore feature or at least liberal use of salt in dealing with Bravesfan1984's posts (at least in this forum).What, and miss the entertainment?

[jalbright]

Wow, HOF years pretty much didn't exist from at least 1906 to 1909, 1965, 1968. Rickey Henderson, Reggie Jackson, Eddie Collins, Mike Schmidt, Harmon Killebrew never even had one. At least Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Joe Morgan managed one each :banghead::banghead: (if we do NOT consider the too many outs/strikeouts problems)

Yeah, catchers and middle infielders are really going to do well with those standards. :rolleyes: There also doesn't seem to be much recognition of the importance of power hitting, either. It seems Bravesfan1984's ideal Hall could meet in a large classroom.

[brett]

I don't think McGriff is within the top 20 1st basemen of all time...and I don't want to see more than 20 in at any position other than pitchers and outfielders...at least not for a while...so...I just don't see it.


Your top 20? What about Sisler and Terry? I've seen Murray as high as 40th all time position player and McGriff is pretty similar.

And at last glance he was basically identical or a little better offensive player to Sosa (except that Sosa ran a little better).

How do you feel about Sosa and Andre Dawson?

McGriff is absolutely right on my border for a mid-sized HOF-maybe no more than 150 position players and 75 pitchers max.

[brett]

Who else has 10,000+ plate appearances or 2400+ games with a 134 OPS+ who doesn't deserve to be in the HOF?

9 140+ OPS+ years and 7 in a row. Basically a 140 OPS+ is what I consider to be "marginally in the MVP discussion" even for a DH or first baseman.


Finished in the top 6 in OPS+ 7 straight years.

[RuthMayBond]

Who else has 10,000+ plate appearances or 2400+ games with a 134 OPS+ who doesn't deserve to be in the HOF?
There's only about a couple dozen of those guys period

[SABR Matt]

Your top 20? What about Sisler and Terry? I've seen Murray as high as 40th all time position player and McGriff is pretty similar.

And at last glance he was basically identical or a little better offensive player to Sosa (except that Sosa ran a little better).

How do you feel about Sosa and Andre Dawson?

McGriff is absolutely right on my border for a mid-sized HOF-maybe no more than 150 position players and 75 pitchers max.

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.

[RuthMayBond]

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.

At least we can count another one who has him ahead of Sisler :dance
Anson NINE spots below Raffy?

[SABR Matt]

Yes...Anson nine spots below Palmeiro. I just do not understand this community's ridiculous claims about Anson as a top-3 first baseaman. Utter nonsense.

Not only was he playing in weak leagues with some downright silly rules on which he capitalized (e.g. some of his "stolen bases" were just advancing a base on someone else's out), but his raw visible performance just is not that good.

A career 141 OPS+ (moved down by normalization to a weaker more spread out league), only three seasons I would describe as great production rate years, and not a particularly good fielder at any of his positions (although I admit there's a lot more uncertainty with that for 19th century guys...especially for his catching stats).

It's true I'm missing some of his early years (pre-1871)...but I just don't see the case for Anson being chosen ahead of a modern slugging star like Willie McCovey or even his contemporary (Dan Brouthers).

[RuthMayBond]

Yes...Anson nine spots below Palmeiro. I just do not understand this community's ridiculous claims about Anson as a top-3 first baseaman. Utter nonsense.Understood (I don't even have him top 8)

<It's true I'm missing some of his early years (pre-1871)...but I just don't see the case for Anson being chosen ahead of even his contemporary (Dan Brouthers).>

2500+ plate apps?

[PVNICK]

Matt, you have Murray ahead of Mize, Bagwell and McCovey. Is that all glove and career length or would you put his peak from about 81-86 on a par or near par with theirs?

[jalbright]

What, and miss the entertainment?

Your choice. You want salt on your popcorn? That was my alternate suggestion.

[SABR Matt]

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.