Fred McGriff and the HOF

[Lanteri]

I was taking a look at the "Crime Dog's" career numbers the other day and it reminded that 2010 was the first year that he was on the HOF ballot. And, as such, I noticed that he only received 21.5% of the vote.

It got me thinking, considering the recent elections of guys like Jim Rice and Andre Dawson, and the fact that McGriff has always thought to have been a clean player in an era dominated by steroid usage, does McGriff wind up in the Hall?

What are you guys thoughts on McGriff as a player, and do you think he should/will be a HOFer?

Stats

[Yawkey Way]

When looking at pure numbers, McGriff's stat line turns out to be .284/493 homers/ 1550 RBI's. Other vital stats include a .377 OBP, .509 slugging percentage and a .886 OPS.

When looking at other guys who were elected to the hall of fame solely at his position in the last 15 years you have Tony Perez, Orlando Cepeda, and Eddie Murray. I'm not going to count the two guys voted in by the SCNL, i'm just going to focus on BBWA and Veterans committee selections.

Perez played 23 seasons, hit .279, 379 homers, 1652 RBI's. He also had a .341OBP, .463 SLG and a .806OPS. He had 15 less strikeouts than Mcgriff over 4 more seasons, so that's a slight edge to Perez.

Cepeda played 17 seasons, hit .297, 379 homers, 1365 RBI's. He paired that with a .350 OBP, .499 SLG, .849 OPS. Cepeda only had 1169 strikeouts, which is far fewer than our first two contestants.

Eddie Murray played 21 seasons, hit .287, 504 HR's, and a whopping 1917 RBI's. He had a .359 OBP, .476 SLG and a .836 OPS. He struck out 1516 times.

McGriff is second out of the four in home runs, which at the first base position where all of these players had a good bat was fairly important. McGriff also had the best OBP/SLG/OPS out of the four, and was 3 points away from sharing the same batting average as Eddie Murray. McGriff's pure numbers outshine Cepeda and Perez IMO, and it only took Murray two tries to get in. McGriff will and should most likely be a hall of famer.

[Warner2BruceTD]

Watching McGriff his entire career, I never felt like I was watching a HOF player.

Murray did the same amount of damage is a less offensive/power friendly era, won a Rookie Of The Year, and finished top 5 in MVP voting something like a half dozen times. Some of Murray's percentage/average numbers are dragged down a but because he played well past his prime. Murray also eclipsed 3000 hits (easily), while McGriff didnt even get to 2500.

I think Murray was a better player than McGriff, and I think Murray is a fringe HOF'er, while McGriff is a guy I wouldnt vote for.

Cepeda was the best plyer out of the four if you are talking who was best at their peak, but he was frequently injured and declined at a reletively young age.

[chazmaniandevil]

i just want him to make it because of his nickname

[FedEx227]

No, in a way I agree with Warner. Not that he should never be in the hall, but the watching part.

He's an interesting case though. It'll have to be a real study of his numbers because when you watched the guy, throughout his career it never seemed like you were watching a HOF. Then again, he was overshadowed by the HR explosion of the mid 90s and sort of got lost in the shuffle.

League-relative stats show though he was still a VERY good player. 134 OPS+ The jury is still kind of out on him. He may get in if the steroids guys get pushed out... but he's RIGHT on the cusp. Even Baseball Reference puts him RIGHT at the edge:

Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 100 (150), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

[Warner2BruceTD]

Whether that is the case for just one or two baseball fans or every single one the point is the same: make the case for or against him being in the Hall without crap like that, it means nothing.

Yeah, we should just set HOF numerical values, and punch numbers through a spreasheet. If a player eclipses those variables, put them in. This way, we can avoid things like debates, and remove all human/subjective analysis from the process. Awesome.

[Warner2BruceTD]

No, in a way I agree with Warner. Not that he should never be in the hall, but the watching part.

He's an interesting case though. It'll have to be a real study of his numbers because when you watched the guy, throughout his career it never seemed like you were watching a HOF. Then again, he was overshadowed by the HR explosion of the mid 90s and sort of got lost in the shuffle.

League-relative stats show though he was still a VERY good player. 134 OPS+ The jury is still kind of out on him. He may get in if the steroids guys get pushed out... but he's RIGHT on the cusp. Even Baseball Reference puts him RIGHT at the edge:

Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 100 (150), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

He's a cusp guy, I agree.

To me, he falls on the wrong side of that cusp. I'd rather have Mo Vaughn or Carlos Delgado or Frank Thomas or Jeff Bagwell. Two of those guys probably have no shot at the HOF, and Bagwell will be borderline.

McGriff falls behind guys like that, and ahead of guys like Tino Martinez & Richie Sexon.

[FedEx227]

Yeah, I'm tending to lean towards no on Fred McGriff. Numbers were good, but they certainly weren't elite for his era.

[Warner2BruceTD]

Thome is another guy from his era who was better.

[FedEx227]

There's a lot, which is unfortunately because McGriff probably has the numbers TO get in and who knows maybe once the steroid guys fall he'll slip in... I just don't feel his candidacy.

[Lanteri]

There's a lot, which is unfortunately because McGriff probably has the numbers TO get in and who knows maybe once the steroid guys fall he'll slip in... I just don't feel his candidacy.

See the thing was when I was looking at the guys that recently got inducted in Rice and Dawson, was that I feel McGriff (statistically anyway) appears to be a better player than both sporting an OPS+ of 134 against 128 and 119.

Granted, it's different eras, but it still makes you wonder since they got in, does it make it more or less likely for McGriff. And again, with the whole shunning so to speak of the admitted steroid users, and suspected steroid users, it has to make a guy like McGriff look more appealing in the eyes of the HOF voters.

Last question is: Say McGriff picked up another 7 HRs in his career to reach 500. At that point, does it stop being a debate at all?

[FedEx227]

We know writers love their benchmarks so I'm sure that would've helped, but I don't believe in that stuff especially when the difference is like 7.

Rice and Dawson definitely opened the gates for a lot of guys, what really depends though is are you an "era" guy or an overall?

If a guy has overall fantastic numbers but was just average in his generation that had admittedly a lot of people with similar talent and numbers does he warrant inclusion? Or do you take a guy who may not have all-time great numbers but was elite in his era that may have been a down-time for the league or for his position or whatever.

McGriff is a tough debate because you can make good, well-backed, legit arguments both ways.

[EmpireWF]

He's a cusp guy, I agree.

To me, he falls on the wrong side of that cusp. I'd rather have Mo Vaughn or Carlos Delgado or Frank Thomas or Jeff Bagwell. Two of those guys probably have no shot at the HOF, and Bagwell will be borderline.

McGriff falls behind guys like that, and ahead of guys like Tino Martinez & Richie Sexon.

Fuck Mo Vaughn.

I'd think Delgado and Thomas are HOFers. Bagwell is borderline like you mentioned.

[zack54attack]

Ron Santo belongs in the HOF.

[Lanteri]

Ron Santo belongs in the HOF.

No.