Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fred McGriff--HOF?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fred McGriff--HOF?

    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?
    148
    Yes
    67.57%
    100
    No
    32.43%
    48

  • #2
    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
    "Hall of Famer Whitey Ford now on the field... pleading with the crowd for, for some kind of sanity!"

    Comment


    • #3
      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.
      "The numbers are what brought me here; as it appears they brought you."
      - Danielle Rousseau

      Comment


      • #4
        Expand on OPS

        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.

        Comment


        • #5
          Further dilution

          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.
          Baseball is a ballet without music. Drama without words ~Ernie Harwell

          Comment


          • #6
            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.

            Comment


            • #7
              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

              Comment


              • #8
                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

                Comment


                • #9
                  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?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I actually like Crime Dog as a canidate.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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.
                      "The numbers are what brought me here; as it appears they brought you."
                      - Danielle Rousseau

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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.

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X