Baseball Hall of Fame Contemporary Ballot (Vote Is Dec 4)

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,392
29,627
287
54

Well, well, the most ridiculous Hall of Fame in existence, the one that has done everything possible to dilute the Hall to meaninglessness - has another vote coming up on December 4. Here are your candidates:

Albert Belle - no
Barry Bonds - clearly has the numbers, depends on what you think about juicing
Roger Clemens - see Bonds
Don Mattingly - a great player for about 4 years, he's not a HOFer (why isn't the much better Keith Hernandez here?)
Fred McGriff - see comments below
Dale Murphy - his only performance enhancer was milk
Rafael Palmeiro - see Bonds
Curt Schilling - a borderline case, I personally wouldn't let his personality keep him out but....

Now here's my deal with McGriff: Harold Baines got elected a few years back because his former manager and former owner argued, "If there hadn't been a strike in 1981 and in 1994, Baines would have gotten 3,000 hits and would be in the Hall."

If THAT is the argument...McGriff would have 500 HRs, too, if not for the missed games in 1994-95 (he only needed 7). So McGriff has to go - and btw, Fred was the first guy to ever lead BOTH leagues in HRs (AL in 1989, NL in 1992), and he was a tall, thin guy with a Willie McCovey type swing (though not as powerful).

Mattingly, as I've said, was done in by injuries, but I can't even see why he's on this list ahead of other players; he wasn't even the best first baseman IN NEW YORK CITY in 1984-88, Keith Hernandez was a better all-around player (and creams him in the WAR category, too). I LIKE Mattingly, don't get me wrong, I just don't think he's a Hall guy.

The thing to me with Dale Murphy is.....Jim Rice is only in the Hall because he played for Boston and had that monster 1978 season. During his time with the Red Sox - other than 1978 - Rice was NOT the superstar on the team. Fred Lynn and even the aging Carl Yastrzemski were better names and often players and Carlton Fisk as well. After they left, Wade Boggs came along and won a bunch of batting titles as the Tony Gwynn of the AL.

Rice had 17 more career plate appearances than Murphy did PLAYING FOR MUCH BETTER TEAMS (go compare who hit behind Rice with who hit behind Murphy....which was Bob Horner when he wasn't injured, which was most of the time).

Rice had about 300 more hits, more doubles and triples, 17 fewer homers (again....despite being a right-handed hitter in FENWAY PARK!) while Murphy stole 103 more bases than Rice, walked 300 more times, struck out 300 more times...and grounded into 106 FEWER double plays.

Murphy also won FIVE Gold Gloves as a CENTER FIELDER (Rice? Zero), twice as many Silver Slugger awards, and twice as many MVP awards...again on teams nowhere near as good as the ones on which Rice played.

And btw....Rice only beats Murphy on the WAR scale by one.

More later, but it sure as hell seems to me if Rice is a HOFer that Murphy is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Go Bama

Cruloc

Hall of Fame
Sep 1, 2019
5,328
8,327
187
I'd vote Bonds, Clemens, Murphy, Schilling, McGriff.

I don't know how many each voter is allowed to put on a ballot, but its to a point that its silly not to have Bonds and Clemens in.

Of course, I'd also have Pete Rose, but that's a whole other discussion. You have his memorabilia in the HOF, but not him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DzynKingRTR

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,441
46,656
187
I would vote for Dale, Curt and Fred. Dale is the player who turned me into a Braves fan for life. Fred has the numbers and was a rock solid player his entire career.

I don't like Curt, but I respect his game. He absolutely deserves to be in the HoF - IMO, he is the most deserving player on the ballot.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,392
29,627
287
54
I don't like Curt, but I respect his game. He absolutely deserves to be in the HoF - IMO, he is the most deserving player on the ballot.
MCGRIFF - the PRO
Of the ten most similar players to McGriff, SIX are in the HOF (McCovey, Stargell, Bagwell, Ortiz, Frank Thomas, Billy Williams).

Five-time All-Star

His WAR (wins above replacement) is higher than Jim Rice, Dale Murphy, Thurman Munson, or Don Mattingly, though it's below Keith Hernandez, who was also a first baseman.


MCGRIFF - the CON
McGriff only led the league in two categories his entire career - he led each league in HRs once, but he was the first guy to ever do that, too.

Never won a Gold Glove

Was never really even the best player on his team (granted - he has a tough peer group with Atlanta)

CURT SCHILLING
I go back and forth on Curt, but this is what I decided awhile back on him: Schilling is a borderline case because he was a head case as a young man and really kinda squandered a decade in the game but what puts him over the top is his post-season accomplishments add the necessary weight to make him a Hall of Famer.

Everyone knows about the Bloody Sock game, but Schilling did so much more than that.

1) He won the 1993 NLCS MVP even though Mitch Williams blew both of his games.

Without Curt, the Phillies do not make the 1993 World Series.

2) He threw a complete game five-hit shutout to keep the Phillies alive in a "there's no tomorrow" Game 5 in the 1993 WS.

3) In the 2001 NLDS, Schilling pitched complete games in BOTH Game One AND Game Five, putting Arizona into the NLCS


Johnson pitched once in the NLDS in 2001 - and fell into a quick 3-0 hole and lost.

4) Schilling pitched a complete game in his only appearance in the 2001 NLCS against the Braves.

Johnson got two starts and was better in that round, but Schilling was awesome.

5) Schilling - NOT Johnson - was the guy who started three games in the 2001 World Series.

We can argue over who was the better pitcher in 2001, and both have cases. And yes, Johnson won 3 of the games - but they were co-MVPs. It wasn't Schilling's fault Hung One Kim blew Game Four.

6) In the 2002 NLDS, Schilling made one bad pitch but got no run support - and Arizona lost.

7) In the "there's no tomorrow" Game Six in 2004, he pitched with the bloody sock.

8) He overcame four errors to win Game Two of the 2004 WS.

9) He was injured in both 2005 and 2006 - and the Red Sox didn't win anything.

10) In 2007, he won the clincher in the ALDS, won Game Six in a "must win" in the ALCS, and won his WS start.



To me - a post-season game is 3x the importance (at least) of the regular season, and he almost always came up big regardless of which team he was with. That says HOF to me.



6
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,392
29,627
287
54
After years of us all hearing that Gil Hodges was a HOFer, he recently made it.

Bill James, the analytics guy, noted yesterday McGriff was a much better player than Hodges...it's just Fred didn't play for the Brooklyn Dodgers or manage the Mets to a World Series title.......
 
  • Like
Reactions: B1GTide

Padreruf

Hall of Fame
Feb 12, 2001
8,656
12,149
287
73
Charleston, South Carolina
Past a few players from each generation, the HOF tends to be a popularity contest with the determining factor being whether one played on a regularly contending team. I would like it better if the retired players and managers/GM's voted rather than the baseball writers. Most of them have no idea how hard it is to throw or hit a curve ball or a 98 mph fastball...
 
  • Like
Reactions: B1GTide

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,392
29,627
287
54
Past a few players from each generation, the HOF tends to be a popularity contest with the determining factor being whether one played on a regularly contending team. I would like it better if the retired players and managers/GM's voted rather than the baseball writers. Most of them have no idea how hard it is to throw or hit a curve ball or a 98 mph fastball...

Wanna know the irony?

Virtually all of the terrible selections to the Hall of Fame were made by......the former players and managers.

The Frankie Frisch group from the 70s and the former White Sox guys picking Harold Baines were the former chums of the guys chosen.

Trust me - if Bobby Cox and the Big Three made up a section of the voting board, Dale Murphy would be in the Hall tomorrow morning.
 

Padreruf

Hall of Fame
Feb 12, 2001
8,656
12,149
287
73
Charleston, South Carolina
Wanna know the irony?

Virtually all of the terrible selections to the Hall of Fame were made by......the former players and managers.

The Frankie Frisch group from the 70s and the former White Sox guys picking Harold Baines were the former chums of the guys chosen.

Trust me - if Bobby Cox and the Big Three made up a section of the voting board, Dale Murphy would be in the Hall tomorrow morning.
Wow...that is IRONY!! I guess nothing like this is ever totally objective...subjectivity enters into the process no matter what.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B1GTide

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,392
29,627
287
54
Let's work through the Keltner List of whether a guy would be a good HOFer or not.

We'll do Murphy and McGriff.

Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

Murphy was among the contenders for that designation, particularly 1982-86. I wouldn't say he was the best, but he was among them (I would still pick Mike Schmidt over Murph for my team in a draft).

McGriff was never considered anywhere close to the best player in the game.

Was he the best player on his team?

Murphy - indisputably.
McGriff - disputably but probably never. Possibly on the 89 Blue Jays and the 91-92 Padres.

Was he the best player in baseball at his position?
Murphy - won 5 straight Gold Gloves and 4 straight Silver Sluggers (1982-86), meaning it's reasonable to conclude he was the best centerfielder AT LEAST in the NL during those years. He won 2 MVPs as well and led a pedestrian team to a pennant and two second-place finishes. Fred Lynn was probably the best CF in the AL in the early 80s and Kirby Puckett was in the late 80s - so it might be tough to argue Murphy as the best at his position IN THE MLB but without question in the NL (his real competition being Andre Dawson for awhile)

McGriff - no

Was he the best player in the league at his position?
Murphy - yes, from 1982 to 1986.
McGriff - no

Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?
Murphy - well, he was the MVP in 1982, but he played for mostly lousy teams
McGriff - was a backup 1B on the 87 Jays, who collapsed the final week of the season; was on the 89 Jays and won th HR title on a pennant winner; was traded to the Braves in 93 and was the spark - literally - that won the pennant; and he was on the 95-97 Braves who finished 1st each year

Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?
Both kind of went over the cliff quickly after age 33

Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
No.

Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?

Three of the most similar to Murphy and six of the most similar to McGriff are.

Do the player’s numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?
Murphy - yes
McGriff - no

Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?
no

Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?
I don't think I'd rank Murphy ahead of Andruw Jones.
McGriff unquestionably is not.

How many MVP-type seasons did he have?
Murphy won two but was never higher than 7th otherwise.
McGriff only once in top five

Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?
Murphy 2 and 2
McGriff 0 and maybe 1 (1993)

How many All-Star-type seasons did he have?
Murphy 7
McGriff 5

How many All-Star games did he play in?
see above

Did most of the other players who played in this many go into the Hall of Fame?
Yes.


If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?
Yes to both.

What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

No

Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

Both -yes.
 

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator
Staff member
Aug 15, 2004
30,428
17,801
237
48
Where ever there's BBQ, Bourbon & Football
I'm not sure where "we're" getting that Fred McGriff's numbers do not meet HOF standards yet Dale Murphy's do. I'd point out that Dale Murphy's career wasn't played in the steroid era and his career was wrapping up before the roid rage of baseball really took off. Outside of evidence showing otherwise, Fred McGriff's name never was tied to steroids and he was a perfect candidate (big, homerun hitter, etc.) to be investigated yet his name never came up if I'm remembering correctly. So McGriff was competing (stats-wise) against guys who we now know greatly benefitted from steroids while McGriff did it clean. That has to be taken into consideration before saying Murphy was considered one of the best during his time while McGriff wasn't. McGriff was competing against guys who were juicing and inflating stats that otherwise they wouldn't have attained.



1668183810856.png

1668183785617.png
 
Last edited:

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,392
29,627
287
54
I'm not sure where "we're" getting that Fred McGriff's numbers do not meet HOF standards yet Dale Murphy's does. I'd point out that Dale Murphy's career wasn't played in the steroid era and his career was wrapping up before the roid rage of baseball really took off. Outside of evidence showing otherwise, Fred McGriff's name never was tied to steroids and he was a perfect candidate (big, homerun hitter, etc.) to be investigated yet his name never came up if I'm remembering correctly. So McGriff was competing (stats wise) against guys who we now know greatly benefitted from steroids while McGriff did it clean. That has to be taken into consideration before saying Murphy was considered one of the best during his time while McGriff wasn't. McGriff was competing against guys who were juicing and inflating stats that otherwise they wouldn't have attained.



View attachment 29944

View attachment 29943

Look at the bottom of the page:

McGriff
Hall of Fame Statistics

Black Ink
Batting - 9 (318th), Average HOFer ≈ 27
Gray Ink
Batting - 105 (258th), Average HOFer ≈ 144
Hall of Fame Monitor
Batting - 100 (176th), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards
Batting - 48 (95th), Average HOFer ≈ 50



Murphy
Hall of Fame Statistics
Black Ink
Batting - 31 (68th), Average HOFer ≈ 27
Gray Ink
Batting - 147 (118th), Average HOFer ≈ 144
Hall of Fame Monitor
Batting - 116 (137th), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards
Batting - 34 (252nd), Average HOFer ≈ 50
JAWS
Center Field (27th):
46.5 career WAR | 41.2 7yr-peak WAR | 43.8 JAWS | 3.5 WAR/162
Average HOF CF (out of 19):
71.6 career WAR | 44.7 7yr-peak WAR | 58.1 JAWS | 5.4 WAR/162


Murphy beats him 5 Gold Gloves to 0.
Murphy beats him 2 MVPs to 0.

Murphy played for LOUSY teams, McGriff played for a bunch of pennant winners (and had better guys hitting behind and in front of him.

Murphy rates as a better CF than McGriff does as a first baseman in the all-time rankings.


There's a case to be made for both, it's far easier to justify Murphy, though.


McGriff had Chipper Jones hitting in front of him for 3 years and David Justice and Ryan Klesko hitting behind him. He hit ahead of Olerud his last year in Toronto...and right behind Tony Gwynn in San Diego.

Murphy hit in front of Bob Horner, who couldn't keep from breaking his wrist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B1GTide

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator
Staff member
Aug 15, 2004
30,428
17,801
237
48
Where ever there's BBQ, Bourbon & Football
Look at the bottom of the page:

McGriff
Hall of Fame Statistics

Black Ink
Batting - 9 (318th), Average HOFer ≈ 27
Gray Ink
Batting - 105 (258th), Average HOFer ≈ 144
Hall of Fame Monitor
Batting - 100 (176th), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards
Batting - 48 (95th), Average HOFer ≈ 50
Murphy

Hall of Fame Statistics
Black Ink
Batting - 31 (68th), Average HOFer ≈ 27
Gray Ink
Batting - 147 (118th), Average HOFer ≈ 144
Hall of Fame Monitor
Batting - 116 (137th), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards
Batting - 34 (252nd), Average HOFer ≈ 50
JAWS
Center Field (27th):
46.5 career WAR | 41.2 7yr-peak WAR | 43.8 JAWS | 3.5 WAR/162
Average HOF CF (out of 19):
71.6 career WAR | 44.7 7yr-peak WAR | 58.1 JAWS | 5.4 WAR/162
Murphy beats him 5 Gold Gloves to 0.


Murphy beats him 2 MVPs to 0.

Murphy played for LOUSY teams, McGriff played for a bunch of pennant winners (and had better guys hitting behind and in front of him.

Murphy rates as a better CF than McGriff does as a first baseman in the all-time rankings.


There's a case to be made for both, it's far easier to justify Murphy, though.


McGriff had Chipper Jones hitting in front of him for 3 years and David Justice and Ryan Klesko hitting behind him. He hit ahead of Olerud his last year in Toronto...and right behind Tony Gwynn in San Diego.

Murphy hit in front of Bob Horner, who couldn't keep from breaking his wrist.
Both players had things working against them and for them, they had no control over and I think when we reach a point that we're having to go to the level of filtering you've gone to in order to try to show Murphy's case for the HOF is "by far" easier than McGriff's, I think the answer is obvious. McGriff is just as worthy as Murphy.
 
Last edited:

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,392
29,627
287
54
Both players had things working against them they had no control over and I think when we reach a point that we're having to go to the level of filtering you've gone to in order to try to show Murphy's case for the HOF is "by far" easier than McGriff's, I think the answer is obvious. McGriff is just as worthy as Murphy.
I didn't filter anything.

Dale Murphy - one can make an argument he was the best player in baseball from 1982-86.

Nobody can even make the case McGriff was the BEST FIRST BASEMAN, let alone best player.
 

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator
Staff member
Aug 15, 2004
30,428
17,801
237
48
Where ever there's BBQ, Bourbon & Football
I didn't filter anything.

Dale Murphy - one can make an argument he was the best player in baseball from 1982-86.

Nobody can even make the case McGriff was the BEST FIRST BASEMAN, let alone best player.
And as you're trying to discredit McGriff's case by stating he played on better teams, 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, 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 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.

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. So, yeah, Murphy GREATLY benefited from not having to compete with the roid era. 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.

Regarding the Gold Gloves, I'm an old school sort and I love defense and think it is heavily discounted in the HOF consideration. 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. 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.


1668197602832.png
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,392
29,627
287
54
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"? NO!!!

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.

Unbelievable.

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.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,392
29,627
287
54
Which is why I believe Albet Belle will eventually get in. As will Crime Dog.
Albert Belle was not as bad (personality-wise) as we recall; he just had more public meltdowns that reinforced he was a recovering boozer.

Thing is...I guess it's my nostalgia here because I remember when we thought the HOF was for the really elite players. After reading more and watching names that make me say "who the hell was that" get elected along with "you've got to be kidding me" selections (Harold Baines), the Hall is so watered down now that it means next to nothing.

I will admit to being wrong about the fact that when I think HOF, I'm looking for the Willie Mays-Hank Aaron standard. Okay, I'll admit that's too difficult. But it has become like the Heisman Trophy in that the politics (the Rizzuto vote was the most notable one) especially regarding the Yankees has made it untenable.

So, okay, the Hall is not "just" guys like Bob Gibson and Warren Spahn, but it seems to me we've lowered it too far (and Rizzuto tbf has nothing to do with that). Gil Hodges having some sort of special credential ("he managed the 69 Mets") is insane. He was 93 games below .500 as a manager but it all gets washed away because Mets. Yes, he was beloved.

But putting him in the Hall means you're right.

That's what fans are sick of: "If Hodges is a HOFer then McGriff surely is" - and they're right even if that's a terrible way to make one's case.

That's also why Dick Allen is going to win up in there eventually.


But I leave with this: should Tommy John be in the Hall of Fame? And if so, why isn't he?

He won 288 games, 12 short of the magical 300.
And he probably gets that if not for the missed season with Tommy John surgery (there's an irony!)

But an average Tommy John season over his career was a 13-11 season with a 3.34 ERA. Is THAT a Hall of Famer? Or does he get extra credit because he did it for so many years past his prime? Does he go into the Hall because "he's borderline and he did have the surgery that changed pitching in MLB forever"?

I can see it either way.
 

Latest threads