Making the Case for Fred McGriff

[JayJaxon]

I have been trying really hard to figure out why people are just not looking at Fred McGriff as a Hall of Fame candidate. ESPN has nothing to say about him AT ALL. I set up a poll a few weeks ago to start a discussion about this year's candidates, but it only made me even more uneasy about the McGriff thing. bruschimania made a comment in that poll that actually inspired this thread. After reading his thoughts on the situation I did a little research about McGriff and players he has been compared to. Hopefully I will change the minds of some people with this information.

I took 7 players and put them up against McGriff's career numbers. It was said that he didn't compare to players like Mark Grace, Jeff Bagwell, and Mark McGwire as far as 1st Basemen in the 90's. So I looked at their numbers. Then I took three well known Hall of Famers that are 1st Basemen. Those men are Willie McCovey, Tony Perez, and Willie Stargell. For good measure I threw Barry Larkin in the mix since it is widely regarded that he will get in. Here are McGriff's numbers.

Fred McGriff

AVG: .284

HR: 493

HITS: 2,490

RBI: 1,550

OTHER: 5x All-Star, 3x Silver Slugger

Let's first look at other first basemen of the era that McGriff has been compared to. If McGriff has better career totals in a certain area, it's highlighted in Red.

Mark Grace

AVG: .303

HR: 173

HITS: 2,445

RBI: 1,146

OTHER: 3x All-Star, 4x Gold Glove

Jeff Bagwell

AVG: .297

HR: 449

HITS: 2,314

RBI: 1,529

OTHER: 4x All-Star, 3x Silver Slugger, '91 ROY, '94 MVP

Mark McGwire

AVG: .263

HR: 583

HITS: 1,626

RBI: 1,414

OTHER: 12x All-Star, '87 ROY

Looking at this, it is clear that McGriff is in the same class (and in some cases above) as these players. He is just shy of the batting averages of Bagwell and Grace. But he surpasses them in every other category. He has McGwire in every category save for home runs. Now let us look at players that have been elected to the Hall of Fame.

Willie Stargell

AVG: .282

HR: 475

HITS: 2,232

RBI: 1,540

OTHER: 7x All-Star, '79 MVP

Tony Perez

AVG: .279

HR: 379

HITS: 2,732

RBI: 1,652 (102 more than McGriff)

OTHER: 7x All-Star

Willie McCovey

AVG: .270

HR: 521

HITS: 2,211

RBI: 1,555 (5 More than McGriff)

OTHER: 6x All-Star, '59 ROY, '69 MVP

Now has anyone changed their mind after looking at this? Here are three guys that are in the Hall of Fame as first basemen. I was actually a little worried to go diving into Hall of Famer's statistics for fear that he might not measure up. But it is very reasonable to say that he compares with these guys.

Now here is Larkin:

Barry Larkin

AVG: .295

HR: 198

HITS: 2,340

RBI: 960

OTHER: 12x All-Star, '95 MVP 379 Stolen Bases

Larkin has a slightly better average than McGriff. But that is it. So please tell me I changed someone's mind!

[CDixonDesign]

You've made some excellent posts and points here Jay, here's to McGriff getting more recognition...supporters like you can turn heads...

[mania]

McGriff is a prime example of the "hall of the very good". If he'd won an MVP, he might have more of a shot, but that is a big award for a winner, and he never even finished in the Top 3 of voting. If he played for teams with more clout pushing his case, he might get in and not deserve it (ala Jim Rice), but he does not deserve it.

And the more damning evidence that he's an awful candidate compared to Larkin is underneath "the numbers". 12 all star appearances and an MVP.

[JayJaxon]

I get what you are saying with the All-Star selections, but I have a hard time taking things like that into consideration when it's really a popularity contest as to who gets to be an All-Star in the first place. Larkin was the best Shortstop in the National League and as far as first basemen, there were more players to choose from at that time. I completely respect your opinion though. Which is why this thread is in existence in the first place.

I feel the quiet McGriff was underrated his whole career. The lack of talk in his candidacy proves that to me. With all of the MVP award winners not in (Including 2-Time winner Dale Murphy) I don't know how much weight should be put on that either. This is why I used the numbers because there is no voting to determine what is done on the field. This is all done by the player.

[NJTank]

Id consider putting McGriff in, if I had a vote.

[dfwabel]

McGriff is a prime example of the "hall of the very good". If he'd won an MVP, he might have more of a shot, but that is a big award for a winner, and he never even finished in the Top 3 of voting. If he played for teams with more clout pushing his case, he might get in and not deserve it (ala Jim Rice), but he does not deserve it.

And the more damning evidence that he's an awful candidate compared to Larkin is underneath "the numbers". 12 all star appearances and an MVP.

+1. I don't think I could have said it better. Fred, Fred, the cabbage head, was good, and thoughts of PED use has never been considered, he was very good but not HOF.

[BaltimoreFan]

McGriff is a prime example of the "hall of the very good". If he'd won an MVP, he might have more of a shot, but that is a big award for a winner, and he never even finished in the Top 3 of voting. If he played for teams with more clout pushing his case, he might get in and not deserve it (ala Jim Rice), but he does not deserve it.

I've kinda thought the same thing (along with Edgar Martinez). But part of me wants to put him in. I know this will open up a can of worms, but I thought he was clean but overshadowed by many steroid users. He may have been a bigger star, if steroids weren't a part of the game. Also the fact that he was so close to 500 HRs makes it hard for me to say no. He'd be a lock if he only got 7 more HRs, its hard for me to deny him given that fact. I think the best thing for him is to wait around on the ballot for a while like Jim Rice did.

[BBTV]

McGriff was certainly a feared hitter (I know I always hated it when the Phillies had to face him) but he was never really thought of as the top guy at his position, or the best of his era, or an MVP-type guy. Doesn't mean that he wasn't a force to be reckoned with, but with the HOF, you have to look beyond the numbers. Maybe just because of his personality, or because of the cities / teams he was on, or whatever, he just wasn't a HOF-type guy. Also, how many years of his career was he really near the top of first basemen? He had a short run of consecutive 100 RBI seasons, but at a time when that wasn't really a big deal (and IIRC there were second basemen and shortstops getting more RBI.) He had longevity, but not any period where he was the preeminent player at his position.

He is certainly in the Hall of Really, Really, Really (really) Good... but not the HOF.

Not that there aren't other players with similar careers that are in the Hall, but I've never thought that was a good reason to let someone else in. Just because someone slips in, you don't have to let everyone else in.

[mania]

Jay, I think you know, that had Murphy not basically turned into a pumpkin at 31, he'd be a no doubter as a HOFer. Those first few years are just incredible... but then, whether it's injuries or what have you, he just was not the same player afterward.

[infrared41]

There's an old saying we used to have when I worked in radio. It stated that "if you have to wonder whether or not you should say something on the air, then you probably shouldn't say it." I think that logic translates pretty well to HOF debates. If we need to "make a case" or wonder if a guy is HOF worthy of not then he probably isn't. The fact that a case can be made on either side of the debate tells me that McGriff isn't HOF material.

[JayJaxon]

There's an old saying we used to have when I worked in radio. It stated that "if you have to wonder whether or not you should say something on the air, then you probably shouldn't say it." I think that logic translates pretty well to HOF debates. If we need to "make a case" or wonder if a guy is HOF worthy of not then he probably isn't. The fact that a case can be made on either side of the debate tells me that McGriff isn't HOF material.

However, if we went by that logic, the HOF voting would be a one and done situation. That is why guys like Rice stay on the ballot for so long. Their eligibility is debated over and over. By no means is the HOF voting perfect. Someone didn't think Ricky Henderson or Hank Aaron or Mickey Mantle deserved to get in because they didn't get 100%. So when guys that are no doubters like that don't get in, you know the system is flawed. I wanted to feel like it wasn't just my bias that made me believe McGriff should get more consideration. Then after looking at numbers compared to other players not only of the era but ones already in the HOF, I thought I made a great case.

Of course I know that just because I made my case doesn't mean he deserves to get in. I fully understand that 7 home runs and 10 hits, combined with an MVP would make him a no-doubt candidate. I also understand that the 90's and the HOF are full of first basemen that are at the same level or better than him. But both are also full of players that are not better than him.

Either way, I'm glad we are having this conversation. I may not have changed anyone's mind (to this point) but I have got you guys talking about him

[infrared41]

There's an old saying we used to have when I worked in radio. It stated that "if you have to wonder whether or not you should say something on the air, then you probably shouldn't say it." I think that logic translates pretty well to HOF debates. If we need to "make a case" or wonder if a guy is HOF worthy of not then he probably isn't. The fact that a case can be made on either side of the debate tells me that McGriff isn't HOF material.

However, if we went by that logic, the HOF voting would be a one and done situation. That is why guys like Rice stay on the ballot for so long. Their eligibility is debated over and over. By no means is the HOF voting perfect. Someone didn't think Ricky Henderson or Hank Aaron or Mickey Mantle deserved to get in because they didn't get 100%. So when guys that are no doubters like that don't get in, you know the system is flawed. I wanted to feel like it wasn't just my bias that made me believe McGriff should get more consideration. Then after looking at numbers compared to other players not only of the era but ones already in the HOF, I thought I made a great case.

Of course I know that just because I made my case doesn't mean he deserves to get in. I fully understand that 7 home runs and 10 hits, combined with an MVP would make him a no-doubt candidate. I also understand that the 90's and the HOF are full of first basemen that are at the same level or better than him. But both are also full of players that are not better than him.

Either way, I'm glad we are having this conversation. I may not have changed anyone's mind (to this point) but I have got you guys talking about him

I have no problem with that. Jim Rice didn't get better as the years passed. Persistent campaigning by Red Sox shills shouldn't be enough to get a guy into the hall but that's what happened with Jim Rice. He wasn't HOF worthy when he first became eligible. He wasn't HOF worthy 5 years after that. What happened that made him good enough this time? Nothing other than his campaign staff finally beat everyone down and got him the votes he needed.

Sadly, there are writers out there who decide that a player is a hall of famer but he's not good enough to get in on the first ballot so they don't vote for him in his first year of eligibility. That's just asinine if you ask me. A player is either a hall of famer or he isn't. Other writers hold grudges or want to send a message etc. I agree that the voting process is far from perfect and the biggest reason for that is we have ass-clown sports writers calling the shots.

[The_Admiral]

Five years is too long to wait between retirement and enshrinement. Did it take us five years to arrive at the conclusion that Michael Jordan and John Stockton are two of the best players of all time?

[BBTV]

Five years is too long to wait between retirement and enshrinement. Did it take us five years to arrive at the conclusion that Michael Jordan and John Stockton are two of the best players of all time?

The five-year rule accomplishes two things:

1. ensures that the player is actually retired. This isn't perfect of course, but I can't think of too many players who have come back after being enshrined in a HOF (Jim Palmer - though his comeback failed, and Mario Lemieux - but the rules were bent for him, are the only two examples off the top of my head.)

2. takes emotion out of it. Say a guy has an incredible last season, leads his team to the title, etc., and just calls it quits. The emotion from that last run may have everyone saying "HOF - bestest of all timez!!". After a cooling off period, you can objectively look at his career and say "well, other than that last miracle run, he kind of sucked."

[BaltimoreFan]

I have no problem with that. Jim Rice didn't get better as the years passed. Persistent campaigning by Red Sox shills shouldn't be enough to get a guy into the hall but that's what happened with Jim Rice. He wasn't HOF worthy when he first became eligible. He wasn't HOF worthy 5 years after that. What happened that made him good enough this time? Nothing other than his campaign staff finally beat everyone down and got him the votes he needed.

Thats been my opinion. I didn't start following baseball until 1995, and the 80s is one of the decades I know least about. So I never really knew what to think about Jim Rice. I've heard a lot of people said he was one of the most feared of his time. But at the same time I never really heard about him other than the fact that he was on the ballot for a long time. I do not like the 15 years on the ballot rule either, for the reasons you stated. Its certainly an honor to stay on the ballot that long, but at the same time it kinda proves you don't belong in the HOF.

[The_Admiral]

1. ensures that the player is actually retired. This isn't perfect of course, but I can't think of too many players who have come back after being enshrined in a HOF (Jim Palmer - though his comeback failed, and Mario Lemieux - but the rules were bent for him, are the only two examples off the top of my head.)

It doesn't bother me too much that Mario Lemieux was an active Hall of Famer. You could've enshrined him in 1992 before he even had the cancer scare. Why the hell not? He's Mario Lemieux.

2. takes emotion out of it. Say a guy has an incredible last season, leads his team to the title, etc., and just calls it quits. The emotion from that last run may have everyone saying "HOF - bestest of all timez!!". After a cooling off period, you can objectively look at his career and say "well, other than that last miracle run, he kind of sucked."

I get that there needs to be proper perspective, but maybe that down time only needs to be two or three years. For all the flack we rightfully give baseball writers, I don't think the majority of them would be such slaves to their emotions as to start inducting undeserving verygoods left and right. Hell, we can't get Telander to vote for anybody. Five whole years just feels like a lot of time to twiddle one's thumbs, especially in a Hall of Fame as selective as baseball's, where you should really know whether a guy's in or out without half a decade of careful deliberation. Rickey Henderson, we knew he was in for years. Jim Rice, we weren't really sure leaning toward no, but then they let him in anyway so that busload of bitchy New Englanders would just shut their mouths already.

[The_Admiral]

oh and no Fred McGriff is not a Hall of Famer

[njmeadowlanders]

A Fred McGriff thread and NOBODY has referenced his appearance in those Tom Emanski Videos?

Really?

"This is the defensive drills video that gets results!".

[Jigga]

A Fred McGriff thread and NOBODY has referenced his appearance in those Tom Emanski Videos?

Really?

"This is the defensive drills video that gets results!".

That right there is enough to keep him out.

[Braden]

Personally, I don't think he's in. There's more to electing someone to the Hall of Fame than statistics.

IF he goes in, he MUST wear this hat on his plaque.