Revisiting Fred McGriff and the Hall of Fame

The case of Fred McGriff is quite curious for a number of reasons. On one hand, he was a player who was remarkably consistent during his career. On the other hand, he was a player whose statistics were often dwarfed by his peers during one of the most controversial eras in Baseball history. Because of the latter reason, one could often forget a player like Fred McGriff who played for 19 seasons and posted strong numbers. Unfortunately, McGriff played in the era when players like Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Rafael Palmiero, Mark McGwire, and Sammy Sosa made headlines. This has led to the general feeling that McGriff was not an elite player and that he was simply a solid player with a compiled end result. It is an interesting debate as McGriff is really one of the first players who actually brings the impact of the era to the forefront. Should he get bonus points because he played at the height of the performance enhancing drug era? Probably not, but one has to take out the idea of perception when discussing McGriff’s Hall of Fame credentials. When discussing Hall of Fame candidates, the question about being the most dominant player in the era usually is brought up. It is a question that may likely keep McGriff out of Cooperstown. However, it is a question that just be unfair.

Quietly Durable

The one thing that could be said about the lefty slugger is that he was dependable. Starting at age 24 (his first full season) in 1988 until age 38, McGriff played in at least 144 games (except in the strike shortened 1994 season). He did not suffer one injury that kept him out of the lineup for an extended period of time. McGriff is a World Series winner, having been the first baseman for the 1995 champion Atlanta Braves. Additionally, McGriff is someone who never was involved in any sort of trouble off the field or in the clubhouse, which isn’t something the Hall of Fame really considers. Because he was a quiet personality, “The Crime Dog” was never seen in commercials aside from the Tom Emansky baseball training videos. He didn’t get to do the Pepsi ads that Sammy Sosa did or get the public adoration that Mark McGwire received. What he did accomplish was finishing in the top ten in the MVP voting for six seasons and being an All-Star for five seasons. He does have a complete resume. He played for a long period of time, had some tremendous seasons mixed with some really good seasons, and was a major component to a World Series winner. He did everything right except play in the correct era or in one city. McGriff was somewhat of a Baseball nomad, having played for six teams in his 19 seasons. Besides the Toronto Blue Jays, his original team, he never played more than four seasons with anyone of his teams (Padres, Braves, Devil Rays, Cubs, and Dodgers). Not only was he quiet and being overshadowed by his era, he never had the opportunity to become a city’s own. Derek Jeter is a Yankee; Jim Rice is a Red Sox. McGriff? Is he a Brave because he won a World Series? Is he a Blue Jay because he spent the most time there? What hat would be on his plaque? It definitely hurts his support as writers never really built a relationship with McGriff who just so happens to have better statistics than some Hall of Famers.

The Numbers

One of the most cited cases against McGriff is the number seven. Seven is the number of homeruns he fell short of hitting the magical 500 mark for his career. Perception would have been vastly different had he hit those seven homeruns (blame the 1994 strike or the fact that he aged appropriately and couldn’t hit at 39 and 40 years old). However, McGriff hit over thirty homeruns in 10 out of his 19 seasons, including eight consecutive seasons, from 1988-1994. To further illustrate his consistency at the plate, McGriff failed to hit 20 homeruns only once when he played a full season (his last two seasons he only played in 86 and 27 games respectively). He drove in more than 100 runs in eight seasons, drove in more than 90 in four more seasons, and more than 80 runs in three more seasons. He also hit above .270 in 13 of his 19 seasons. The power numbers are there for sure. But, an even closer looks shows a more complete hitter.

For his career, McGriff is a .284/.377/.509 hitter. That .377 on base percentage is better than Hall of Famers Hank Aaron, George Brett, Paul Molitor, Pie Traynor, Willie Stargell, and Eddie Murray. His .509 slugging percentage is better than Hall of Famers Jim Rice, Tris Speaker, Ernie Banks, Orlando Cepeda, George Brett, Kirby Puckett, Johnny Bench, and Eddie Murray. If one wants to level the playing field with statistics, McGriff’s OPS+ of 134 is better than Cepeda, Billy Williams, Dave Winfield, Tony Gwynn, Joe Morgan, Roberto Clemente, Johnny Bench, Jim Rice, and Eddie Murray.

The numbers do not lie. McGriff, in comparison to current Hall of Famers, is worthy of the same honor. Although he played in the DH era, he was only utilized in that slot 175 times (90 times during his rookie season). He compiled those numbers playing the field, and as stated earlier, playing in almost every game during the season. He may not have career statistics that compare to Ruth, Gehrig, Aaron, Mantle, or Mays, but he does have numbers that compare to the majority of Hall of Famers. He never had a legendary season, but he never had a complete failure of a season; he was simply consistently good. It is that consistency makes him worthy of the spot, but also makes him an afterthought for that same spot.

Perception

Much of the Hall of Fame debate is based on the word perception. What makes one player’s statistics stand out more than others? McGriff, when compared to Hall of Famers like Eddie Murray, Jim Rice, and Dave Winfield compares well. Yet, McGriff is almost an after thought. Perception is a powerful thing; it governs how players are remembered. For instance, Dave Winfield was considered a no-brainer Hall of Fame candidate. He is undoubtedly a worthy member. Yet, is his .283/.353/.475 batting line any better than McGriff’s .284/.377/.509? Winfield hit fewer homeruns and drove in almost 300 more runs than McGriff in four additional seasons. Why is Winfield in (or even Eddie Murray) and McGriff likely won’t be? Perception. Winfield and Murray played their careers in the 1970’s, 80’s, and 90’s. Their statistics were among the best, although Winfield only led the league in RBI once during his entire career. Eddie Murray only led the league in homeruns and RBI just once, in the strike shortened season of 1981. Perception is powerful and it seems that McGriff is a victim of his time when, statistically speaking, he was just as good of a hitter as many already in the Hall of Fame.

What this all means

The odds of McGriff gaining admittance are definitely long. Most voters will point to the fact that he never hit more than 37 homeruns in a single season and only led the league in that category two times. His consistent excellence is overlooked during an era where homeruns were hit at a historical pace. Fred McGriff will never be celebrated as a player who put up excellent statistics, won a championship, and never had an incident. It will take an extreme shift in voting methods for McGriff to get his due. One day, he may get in, but for that to happen, time must bring out a new perspective on the last 20 years of Baseball.

Popularity: 4% [?]