Fred McGriff: Hall of Fame?

[sebastian0622]

Career stats:
- .284 avg/.377 OBP/.509 SLG/.886 OPS
- 493 HR
- 2490 H, 1550 RBI, 1305 BB/1882 K

Pros/Leaderboard Appearances
- Nobody with 493 or more home runs has ever NOT been elected to the HoF.
- 4th among active players in career total bases.
- Led league in HR twice, among top 4 leaders eight times.
- Top 10 in slugging % for 7 straight years (88-94), average finish was 4.3 on the SLG leaderboard during that time.

Cons
- No MVP awards
- Overshadowed by other great offensive 1B of the era
- Is not in the 500 HR club and is looking for work
- Not a good defensive player

Baseball Reference similar players:

Willie McCovey (889) *
Willie Stargell (883) *
Rafael Palmeiro (863)
Andres Galarraga (855)
Billy Williams (849) *
Jeff Bagwell (829)

*denotes Hall of Famer

[dougaiton]

We've done this baby already ( http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...hlight=mcgriff ) but I'm more than happy to do it again!

I'm not more than happy to retype, so here's my initial post again!:


Yes, I know if he gets 500 he'll probably go, but if he doesn't make the big-league club, he might get passed over.

And that's a damn shame.

The Crime Dog was one of the top 5 hitters in OPS+ in his leagye for seven years at his peak between '88 and '94 (excepting '93, when he was seventh). In each of these years, he was in the top 5 in homers and in slugging (barring '91), in the top 5 of straight OPS, and in all but '91 the top 7 of extra-base hits. From 1988-92, he posted 4 straight years in the top5 of BBs as well. At his peak, which lasted for seven years, he was one consistently one of the top 5 hitters in the game.

If we exclude last year and his rookie year (neither did he play enough), only 3 of his 16 seasons had an OPS+ under 120 (the lowest of the 3 being 106 in the 97' NL, where it could be argued that the league totals were affected by McGwire and Sosa's mammoth years), and none of those 16 did he post an OBP under .350. This is one guy who has been consistently excellent for 16 years - in his case, longetivity should count. While some may consider it a weakness that McGriff has been playing for 18 years, the fact he has consistently performed at such a high level is pretty amazing.

Thus, I'd say McGriff had seven great years, and 9 very good years. To me, that's enough. Others?

[bagsangels]

i would have to say no. the only way he has a chance is if he gets to the 500 mark and its not looking so good. btw that chick in your pic is really hott sabastian.

[LivnLegend]

I hope he pulls the plug on this attempt to get to 500. He really has been limping along the last couple years and while it is not unprecedented for a star to hang around too long to hit a milestone, it's kind of pathetic to watch.

[dougaiton]

While questioning LL's baseball opinions is like asking the Dalai Lama whether he really 'knows' Buddhism, I think I'll take the risk and suggest that it isn't really fair to describe McGriff's hanging around in the same breath as you might expect, say, Rickey Henderson too. I think Dodger-glasses are doing it again!

Last year was only the second year since his rookie year he didn't get 500 ABs (and the other one was 480!). He wasn't terrible for the Dodgers either - as a 39 year old, he posted a .748 OPS in an extreme pitchers park. The problem was, it was a huge dropoff (in raw numbers) from a great campaign the year before - .273/.353/.505. Now, there's little doubt his skills are declining, but that much - .181 in 72 ABs isn't very good, but his eye's still good (9 walks), but down at Durham he was okayish. I don't think that McGriff had any reason to feel he didn't have another year left in him somewhere, especially if you strike off last year to injury, he's only 12 months removed from an OPS that would have him as a good starting 1B/DH on over half the teams in the AL.

This year is the only year of his career he hasn't yet deserved his roster spot. I think a HOFer-candidate is allowed one year of embarrasment before he goes!

[LivnLegend]

I got a chance to watch McGriff for nearly half a season and he really seemed to age somewhere between 38 and 39. He limped through a groin injury and may have looked worse than he would have been otherwise but he sure didn’t look good. Now here is he is, 40, and having been released from his hometown team which could have really benefited from having a player reach a career milestone (see Boggs, Wade) but they saw no reason to keep him around. Someone may give him another shot but would you want to be the GM to take a flier on him?

[dougaiton]

I hadn't realised he'd been released by TB, but a google search put that right. I thought he was still a d-ray, so I was commenting thinking that you meant his appearance with TB was a bad idea - I can see now you mean his search for more employers!

Once again, it is idiotic to disagree with LL on baseball truths.

[sebastian0622]

I think he should be in. He did too much offensively during a period of time when offense was down significantly compared to the last 10 years. There was never a year when McGriff was hands-down the best player, but there were few, if any, who were better from 1988-1994.

[Astros33Resurrected]

I vote Yes. McGriff was a very feared hitter during his "Prime". Even if he doesnt get 500 he should be considered. I hope he makes it.

[streetballer67]

I don't think he will ever get to 500 but I do believe he belongs in the Hall.

[Dagrims]

Originally Posted by dougaiton

Now, there's little doubt his skills are declining, but that much - .181 in 72 ABs isn't very good, but his eye's still good (9 walks)

The only reason he walked nine times is because those stats made him one of the best D-Rays hitters and pitchers wanted to get to the next batter in the lineup.

[dougaiton]

Is there anything you can't make a good joke about?

[darkhorse]

Career WARP of 92.0. Season high WARP of 8.4. Good player for a long time. Borderliner who I'd pass on for a HOF plaque.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

Career WARP of 92.0. Season high WARP of 8.4. Good player for a long time. Borderliner who I'd pass on for a HOF plaque.

As discussed with doug in the other thread, the low WARP is mostly caused by defense ( about -10 wins). It's kind of debatable if we should hold that against him for Hall of Fame selections.

If McGriff was a DH all his career, he'd probably get 100 WARP.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

If McGriff was a DH all his career, he'd probably get 100 WARP.

If he were a DH, it might well be lower considering the replacement value at the "position".

[Dagrims]

Originally Posted by dougaiton

Is there anything you can't make a good joke about?

See, that's why you're a JM Finalist. You have a knack for saying the right thing to build up someone's self-esteem, and in the process, make us all like you.

I just feel like saying thank you, dougaiton.

Oh, and McGriff is definitely a borderline HOF.

[Jason]

I think McGriff is one of those guys who's a lock for the Hall of Very Good but not necessarily the HOF. I don't think he was truly as "feared" as a hitter as some of the bigger hitters of his time...(I saw the "similarity" list and think Bagwell in his prime would have been feared more)...it'll be close. Maybe if he's on the ballot in a year of weak candidates (like 2005) he'll have a strong shot at it.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

If he were a DH, it might well be lower considering the replacement value at the "position".

Not exactly. The replacement value at 1B is already the highest. I'm not sure about WARP, but the replacement level used by VORP is the same for DH and 1B.

And interestingly, the average of DHs are almost always much worse than 1Bs.

[rogmax11]

I was all set to launch into a penetrating analysis of McGriffs' career, explaining why he was deserving of great respect but not a spot in the hall, when I read Darkhorses' pithy comment and felt firsthand the sting of redundancy.

[Cardinal Rule]

He's a tough one - his numbers are very good. But do we want the very good in our Hall of Fame? Thing is, every borderline guy that gets in the Hall dilutes the border further. If you have to argue the case very hard, I say that in itself means the guy shouldn't get in. My vote is no.