And as you're trying to discredit McGriff's case by stating he played on better teams,
This has got to be the first time in my life I've been accused of trying to DISCREDIT (are you serious?) Fred McGriff by.....checks notes....TELLING THE TRUTH
McGriff DID play on better teams?
Do you dispute that fact?
surrounded by better hitters etc, things he had zero control over, you are completely dismissing that I can use that same method to say Dale Murphy played in a time that didn't include as many roided up superstars,
All I'm doing is providing context.
I'll be very interested to see if you attempt to make the argument that McGriff was ever considered the best FIRST BASEMAN in baseball, much less the BEST ALL-AROUND player.
where the number of players who hit 30 hr's or more per season started to more than double compared to the time Murphy played the bulk of his career.
I hope you also realize three other factors:
1) PARK FACTORS - namely, McGriff played during a time of easier home runs in ballparks (Murphy never had a single at-bat in Coors Field for starters)
2) if the number of players hitting HRs went up then McGriff's nearly 500 HRs is less impressive than Murphy's nearly 400 home runs in a time of fewer home runs
3) fewer runs scored PER GAME means Murphy's runs were MORE VALUABLE to his team
I also find it telling that Murphy's 1987 season was as good or better than his two MVP seasons (offensively speaking) yet he finished 11th in the voting.
1982 - .281, 36 HR, 109 RBI, Gold Glove (led league in RBIs, 2nd in HR)
1983 - .302, 36 HR, 121 RBI, Gold Glove (lead league in RBIs, slug pct, OPS)
1987 - .295, 44 HR, 105 RBI (no Gold Glove)
The only thing he did "better" in 1987 was hit home runs on a 5th place team. And 1987 was the year that home runs suddenly skyrocketed (Dawson led the NL with 49 and McGwire led the AL with 49), so his home run total, while 2nd in the league, was considered inflated.
I wouldn't agree that his 1987 was as good as his MVP years (esp 1983), but it was a good year. Kinda like Mattingly - four more of those and he'd have had 500 career home runs and we wouldn't be having this conversation. I would say "you can't really be an MVP on a next-to-last place team" except Andre Dawson won it that year on the last-place Cubs.
But it was a fluke. Dawson only won it with 11 votes because Ozzie Smith and Jack Clark split who was more valuable on the same team (12 votes) - and Dawson won it.
To put it more into perspective, one of McGriff's best hitting seasons was 1999 where he hit .310, 32 HR's 104 RBI's and 164 hits, SLG .552 and OPS of .957. The unfortunate thing is, that was dead red in the heart of the roid era when he finished TIED for 38th in the league for most HR's and 44th for RBI's. If you take either of Murphy's 1982 and 83 stats and transport them to that era, specifically the 1999 season he finishes 20th in HR's and 14th in RBI's behind Shawn Green and Jason Giambi and in front of Roberto Almora.
Except we have analytics that adjust for these factors. If Murphy was playing in 1999 with his build and care for self and all those easy home run parks, he might have smashed 60 homers, too.
So, yeah, Murphy GREATLY benefited from not having to compete with the roid era.
Simple question: did anybody EVER AT ANY TIME EVER suggest "Fred McGriff is the best player in baseball"?
Did they with Murphy? YES!!!
So we're comparing a guy who played in one era and AT A MINIMUM was considered "the best player in his league, maybe all of baseball as a centerfielder" against a guy who was a solid hitter, definitely consistent, who played first base and averaged about 10 errors per season.
That matters just as much as Murphy playing on bad teams, McGriff having better hitters behind him and all other "stuff" you're trying to filter your case through.
I've been on this board over 20 years.
Even with people who disagree with me, it's incredible given the details to which I pay attention that I'm being accused of SLANTING EVIDENCE here.
As a reminder: I only went and cut the part of the page that YOU EDITED OUT in the first place when I discussed the gray and black ink.
Tommy Herr hit .301 in 1985. That number sticks out as much as the Brady Anderson HR total in 1996 when you look at his career. He's a .271 lifetime hitter and the only time he hit over .300 other than that was when he only played 1/2 season in 1983.
And why did Herr have a career year in 1985? Because he had Vince Coleman hitting first and stealing over 100 bases, and he had Willie McGee hitting second. So he saw a lot of fastballs right down the middle, and he hit enough of them to top .300.
Is this discrediting Herr by pointing this out? He had those 2 in front of him and Jack Clark behind him, so he got the easiest pitches to hit. It is to his credit that he hit them, but it doesn't change the fact he never did that any other time.
Regarding the Gold Gloves, I'm an old school sort and I love defense and think it is heavily discounted in the HOF consideration.
Gold Gloves are determined by a vote of the managers and coaches within their own league (they've since added a Sabermetric portion to it). And they're not allowed to vote for their own guy.
Now unless I'm supposed to think the people whose job it is to know who can pay defense don't actually know, it's kinda important. AND YES!! You can point to an occasional fluff like when Palmeiro won it when he only played like 28 games - but that only happened because of the method. A bunch of guys split the vote - and he got the most.
But at the same time, the reality of it is no one, regardless of the era played, values defense on the same level as hitting. Part of it is probably due to hitting a baseball is harder than fielding a baseball, though both aren't easy to do. Keith Hernandez has 11 Gold Gloves and was one of the best 1B of all time yet sits outside the HOF.
Keith Hernandez won more MVPs than McGriff did, and he also won more batting titles.
In fact, I'd have to wonder why you'd ever take McGriff over Hernandez for the HOF.
Hernandez beats McGriff in WAR (60.3 to 52.2), scored only 200 fewer runs in 1500 fewer plate appearances, had 800 FEWER STRIKEOUTS (weren't you the one talking about hitting a baseball?), had a higher OBP, higher career BA, and the same number of sac flies in 1500 fewer at bats.
AND was a better defensive first baseman BY FAR.
He also won 2 rings to McGriff's one.
What did McGriff do better than Hernandez?
Hit home runs. And stay off drugs.
Murphy has McGriff on the Gold Gloves, but I don't think it shifts the weights as far as you're trying to shift them.
Three different times in this post now, you've accused me of bad faith.
Instead of doing that, go tell me which of the Keltner List things you disagree with that I posted.
1982-87 CF you'd take over Murphy in MLB?
Dawson in Montreal - debatable
Puckett in Minnesota - yes by the later years
Fred Lynn - possibly in the early years before injuries finished him early
1993-1998 1B you'd take over McGriff in MLB?
Frank Thomas (no question)
Jeff Bagwell - at most a possible roids question
Will Clark - probably; he was better than McGriff but another case of injuries
Rafael Palmeiro - you wouldn't until you knew about the roids
Mark Grace - debatable, certainly on defense but debatable
Mark McGwire - back then you wouldn't have
Andres Galaraga - well, Bobby Cox replaced McGriff with "the Big Cat" so.....but I wouldn't (is it discrediting Galarraga to point out his numbers are inflated by Coors? No).
So when you're comparing eras and players, Murphy stands out as the best or almost the best player at his position in the entire game - and McGriff never does.
And that has (almost) nothing to do with steroids. 6-7 first basemen during his prime were considered better, at least 3 were if we remove the suspected juicers.
Now, look, I'm not going to complain if McGriff goes. There IS an argument to be made for him up to a certain point. "He hit as many home runs as Lou Gehrig" (which he did) is NOT a good starting point, though. I'll even admit that McGriff's case MIGHT BE HELPED by the fact he's a known non-user who hit nearly 500 home runs. And that he won two HR titles, the first to do it in both leagues.
But if home runs is the case, McGriff averaged 32 every 162 games when there were more homers; Murphy averaged 30 AND PLAYED GOLD GLOVE OUTFIELD when there were fewer.