Poll: Is Fred McGriff a HOFer?
Posted by Andy on May 2, 2010
Here's a simple poll. Read more about McGriff at this week's Card of the Week post, and then vote in the poll below.
Posted by Andy on May 2, 2010
Here's a simple poll. Read more about McGriff at this week's Card of the Week post, and then vote in the poll below.
May 2nd, 2010 at 3:20 pm
For those who vote no, I wonder how your view would change if he came back and hit just 7 more home runs. I guess the line must be drawn somewhere
May 2nd, 2010 at 4:26 pm
For you nay-sayers, perhaps the effect that Crime Dog had, just with his mere presence, isn't enough to justify his election -- but then, I seem to recall that being said a lot about Ernie Lombardi, Billy Herman, Billy Williams, Kirby Puckett ... well, you get the idea. If he'd been a Red at some point, his candidacy would be, in my opinion, perfect. As it is, he is still a deserving candidate for HOF honors.
May 2nd, 2010 at 4:55 pm
Sure, I'd vote for him. He was a consistently excellent offensive player. He had 9 seasons with an OPS+ over 140, including 7 in a row from '88-'94. That's more than Jeff Bagwell, Eddie Murray, or Ken Griffey Jr, and the same amount as A-Rod and Reggie Jackson. He is, by all accounts, a classy guy, and I don't believe he's ever been attached to PEDs. I don't think he'll get in - you just don't see much buzz around the guy - but I think Cooperstown could do far worse than the Crime Dog.
May 2nd, 2010 at 5:36 pm
I think McGriff has two things working against him: not getting to 500 home runs (missed by seven) and not getting to 2500 hits (missed by ten). Yet, if you look at the top ten players he compares most favorably to, four are in the hall already McCovey, Stargell, Williams, and Matthews), two will definately be going in (Thomas and Bagwell), and you could make a case for a couple others (chart placed below).
Willie McCovey (887) *
Willie Stargell (875) *
Jeff Bagwell (865)
Frank Thomas (861)
Carlos Delgado (857)
Billy Williams (851) *
Gary Sheffield (850)
Andres Galarraga (850)
Jim Thome (835)
Eddie Mathews (827) *
To me, McGriff was a criminally underrated player. Opposing pitchers feared him, yet he never got the recognition he deserved through the baseball world and with fans in general. Perhaps this was due to his not playing in a big market, or that he wasn't a flashy player, or that he never really promoted himself outside of the Tom Emansky videos. Either way, he deserves to be in the hall, and I hope he gets in.
May 2nd, 2010 at 6:29 pm
McGriff always seemed to be a "Phillies Killer". I don't know if the "Crime Dog" name originated with Chris Berman or someone else, but the first one I ever heard use the nickname was Harry Kallas in the radio broadcast of this game:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/SDN/SDN199304290.shtml
With the Phillies ahead 5-1, Fred "Crime Dog" McGriff walked against starter Danny Jackson to load the bases with one out in the bottom of the 8th. Jackson was pulled at that point. Two runs scored before the bases were loaded again with two out. McGriff would have been the 1st runner across home plate on Bob Geren's grand slam, but that turned into what is just described as "Flyball: LF" after a great Milt Thompson catch.
This was one of two game-saving catches that Thompson made for the Phillies in 1993, and McGriff was on the opposing team both times. The other came after his trade to Atlanta, in Game 4 of the NLCS. Things that both catches had in common - Third out in the bottom of the 8th (Phillies on the road), Danny Jackson was the starting pitcher and was pulled during the 8th, McGriff batted earlier in the inning and did not put a ball into play. He had led off the bottom of the 8th by strking out in the NLCS game.
May 2nd, 2010 at 7:23 pm
If Crime Dog gets in I can't see how Sheffield doesn't get in. He is one of just 4 players with 500 hr/250 steals.
May 2nd, 2010 at 8:06 pm
I'm on the fence, leaning toward voting in favor. Playoff performance can be overrated, but he has solid numbers in four of his five times in (and not awful in 1989, either), and overall excellent figures in a sizable sample. The fearsome impression he left in big moments was well deserved. His offensive winning percentage is far greater than Eddie Murray's or Dave Winfield's.
May 2nd, 2010 at 8:30 pm
On paper, Sheffield's better than McGriff. I don't know if anyone cares about the steals when its "only" 250, though. As much as I prefer to vote for guys on paper, Sheffield's got major personality and PED issues. He's his generation's Dick Allen.
Lots of "bat"-type players from this era.
McGriff, 493 HR, 10174 PA, 134 OPS+
Delgado, 473 HR, 8657 PA, 138 OPS+
Sheffield, 509 HR, 10947 PA, 140 OPS+
Palmeiro, 569 HR, 12046 PA, 132 OPS+
Bagwell, 449 HR, 9431 PA, 149 OPS+
Martinez, 309 HR, 8672 PA, 147 OPS+
Thomas, 521 HR, 10074 PA, 156 OPS+
McGwire, 583 HR, 7660 PA, 162 OPS+
Thome, 569 HR, 9520 PA, 147 OPS+
Sosa, 609 HR, 9896 PA, 128 OPS+
Ramirez, 548 HR, 9489 PA, 155 OPS+
Bonds, 762 HR, 12606 PA, 181 OPS+
Plus... Walker, Giambi. Guerrero could join the list if he stems his decline. Pujols is younger, but he's probably passed several of those guys already.
A lot of those guys are going in pretty easily. Several of them have "off paper" issues... writers might not want to vote for a guy in the Mitchell Report. But to be honest with you, I don't know what the BBWAA is going to do with all of these candidates in the next few years. They are a pretty conservative bunch and its easy to see them raising the bar higher than they've previously set and kicking several of these guys to the VC.
May 3rd, 2010 at 12:13 am
I'm not sure how I'd vote. I lean no, but I'd have to study it further. But the 500 HR means nothing to me. He could come back and hit 7 HR, hit 20 more HR...I don't care about filler seasons in considering HOF credentials, and I don't care about "magic" numbers.
May 3rd, 2010 at 12:55 am
I agree that 250 steals aren't much BUT when the 500 hr/250 steal club consists of A-Rod, Mays, Bonds, and Sheffield I take notice.
Also, Sheffield was a 9x all star, 5x silver slugger, won a batting title, is 55th in MVP Shares, and has great secondary numbers. I just don't think he is a CLEAR CUT no like some want to think he is.
May 3rd, 2010 at 5:27 am
McGriff didn't really have any filler seasons. All but 3 of his seasons saw him post an OPS+ of 100 or greater; the three that didn't occurred at the beginning of his career (3 games) and the last two of his career (86 and 27 games). In those years, he totaled 87 hits, 15 HRs, and 47 RBIs. So his totals weren't really inflated by simply hanging on. He wasn't the stud hitter at the end that he was at the beginning, but was still an above average player. In between those low points, he had 16 season of 100 OPS+ playing, though 4 of them were seriously shortened (less than 100 games). I don't know that that necessarily adds up to a HoF career, but we should be careful not to lump in McGriff with other "compilers". He played at a very high level for a very long time and when he got bad, he stopped. I'm not sure if that was of his own volition or not, but he neither tarnished nor unproductively burgeoned his career with how he handled the end of it.
May 3rd, 2010 at 8:18 am
No. McGriff is just another slugging first basemen in an era full of them. He was never the best player in his league, and there are a dozen other guys with similar stats that will fall short with him.
May 3rd, 2010 at 8:32 am
Odd that the poll presented only 3 of the 4 logical possibilities. I would have voted for the missing fourth choice ("No, he doesn't deserve it but he'll be inducted into the Hall of Fame eventually anyway") if it had been presented.
May 3rd, 2010 at 8:35 am
I presented that option once before for McGwire with the thought that some people think he'll get in but doesn't deserve it based on either steroids use (finally don't have to say "alleged" there anymore for McGwire) or the fact that people overrate his HRs.
McGriff doesn't seem to be in much danger of being overrated to me since he wasn't respected in his time or after his time and is no more tainted by PEDs than any typical player from his era.
May 3rd, 2010 at 9:23 am
Andy, where is the post on four-hit major league debuts? Isn't the play index designed for that type of search? 🙂
May 3rd, 2010 at 11:18 am
I'll put it up DavidRF thanks.
May 3rd, 2010 at 12:23 pm
[...] the weekend we ran a poll on Fred McGriff's HOF candidacy and would like to get your [...]
May 3rd, 2010 at 2:39 pm
BSK, by "filler seasons" I was referring to the thought of McGriff coming back just to hit 7 more home runs, not what he had done in his past. But actually, I do think he had a lot of filler seasons. I think the average OPS+ of a 1Bman is usually around 115 or so. So if OPS+ were my tool of choice, his 2000 season (110 OPS+), for example, would add nothing to his HOF case, though the 27 HR and 106 RBI would add a lot to his career totals. I care more about the heights a player reached than his ability to last a long time at an adequate level.
May 3rd, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Johnny-
I suppose I would argue on behalf of yet a DIFFERENT definition of filler season. Did McGriff have some seasons that were less than stellar? Certainly. Most guys, with perhaps Pujols being the sole exception of recent memory, are going to have some fluctuation. I don't know the average OPS+ of a 1B, but 110 seems like a fair estimate. With that in mind, I think we can point out 1997, 1998, and 2000 as potentially "filler" seasons. 1995 and 1996 aren't particularly stand-out as well. Mixed in there are 1999, 2001, and 2002, which essentially makes up the second half of his career. So, obviously, not every one of his seasons was exceptional. But who's is? For me, filler seasons are those tacked on to the end of a guy's career by which point he has proven himself to be unproductive yet still compiling stats. At worst, McGriff was an average offensive 1B from 1995 through 2002. I don't think it's fair to dismiss his accomplishments during that time as "filler". Otherwise, we'd have to go through every player's career and pick out any random season that was average or worse and eliminate those stats from his record, which just doesn't seem right.
Do they ADD to his case? Individually, no. Do they detract from it? I don't think that's an appropriate conclusion. But, in totality, is there not something worth recognizing about a guy who put together a 19 year career, 16 of which were at their very worst average offensively? And most of which were significantly more so? Would he be a stronger candidate if he stopped playing after 1994?
Now, does that make him a HoFer? I'm still not sure. OPS+ may not even be the best tool for determining such. But, I don't think we can really use the term "filler season" for McGriff.
Who would I use as a good example of unfairly benefiting from "filler seasons"? Andre Dawson. Taking out the last 4 years of his career, where he played 317 games, had OPS+'s of 92, 82, 92, and 92, played at least half of those games at DH, and racked up 39 HRs leaves him with... 399 HRs. And would he even be talked about for the HoF if he didn't pass the magic *400* mark?
May 3rd, 2010 at 3:54 pm
You are right, my use of the term "filler" was probably not the one commonly accepted. I simply don't think that many of his seasons add anything to his HOF qualifications, from the way that I personally would vote for the HOF. But that is true for most players outside the all-time greatest. Most of McGriff's seasons were at least decent and provided value to his teams, and that's great. No, I do not think they detract from his HOF case, and no, he would not have been a better candidate if he retired earlier. I do not think one can play one's way out of the HOF.
Of course his career deserves to be recognized. Actually I was a McGriff fan. I just don't think the HOF is appropriate recognition. But he is not clearly unqualified, and again, if I really spent the time to do a thorough analysis, I might change my mind. I don't think a vote for him is at all ridiculous.
Again, my major point was that artificial thresholds and career totals do not mean much to me. As I posted recently on another thread, if Harold Baines had continued limping along to reach 3000 hits, he would not get my vote. McGriff is a HOFer or he isn't, but I don't think hitting 7 more HR should change anyone's mind on the subject -- at least not anymore than his going from 486 to 493 would have.
May 3rd, 2010 at 4:08 pm
JT-
Agreed. I think you bring up an important point regarding "filler" seasons in general (that is, if I fully understand the nuances of your argument; if not, I will take credit for this point :-D)... they don't add to a guy's HoF resume, but they don't really detract, either. For instance, if you WERE to believe that McGriff's 493 HRs over 19 years was HoF worthy and would vote for him, I don't think you'd suddenly decide that he was NOT worthy if he ended up with 500 over 20 years because he came back for one more year and hit .219 with 7 dingers. I don't think it'd be anything we'd want to see and maybe it'd tarnish his legacy with respect to his preference for individual platitudes over team success. I sometimes seem people say so-and-so is not a HoF because he padded his stats at the end, ignoring the fact that he might have been a HoF before the stat-padding. Obviously, there is a limit at some point, but some people seem inclined to punish guys for "filler" seasons, which seems just as bad as rewarding them for it.
In general, I'm with you and prefer rate stats and peaks to counting stats and longevity. Where does that leave me with McGriff? I'm still not entirely sure. But I'm okay with that for right now. My inclination is to say "no" to him, with the caveat being that I get to eject at least 50% of those who are clearly inferior to him but are in the hall already. Right or wrong, the criteria for the HoF is somewhat dependent on who is already there. And I sometimes find it bothersome that some guys are seemingly "punished" because they are being evaluated by a more informed, intelligent, or thoughtful electorate. In reality, the issue is that no one is really being punished, just some were unfairly rewarded because the electorate was wrong and, ideally, would have this unfair reward taken back. But, that doesn't really seem reasonable. So we're left attempting to make sense of a HoF that does have Jim Rice and doesn't have Fred McGriff, when likely neither one should be in, but the implication of this reality is that Rice was a better player than McGriff, which makes me want to chew glass (and not because it might make some no-nothing head-in-the-sand luddite HoF voter cast his vote for me and my intangible toughness).
May 3rd, 2010 at 4:52 pm
I voted yes...that he deserves it and that he'll get in eventually. I think he would be held in much higher regard -- and would have a more dedicated following -- if he had played his entire career with one team, or perhaps two teams. Still, he was among the game's best for ten years or a little more. What more can you do?
May 3rd, 2010 at 9:17 pm
JDV-
What more can he do? He could have scared people! Maybe he should have worn a Halloween costume to bat. Or maybe in the field! Rice was a feared hitter, but McGriff could have set himself apart as a feared FIELDER.