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]

Originally Posted by 17erstad

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]

Originally Posted by The Commissioner

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]

Originally Posted by mac195

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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...

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]

Originally Posted by The Commissioner

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]

Originally Posted by Naliamegod

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]

Originally Posted by The Commissioner

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]

Originally Posted by csh19792001

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]

Originally Posted by RuthMayBond

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