SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
2018 Hall of Fame vote debate
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 26, 2018 1:23:53 GMT -5
I don't get the hate for elite closers. Hoffman was very good for a long time, even changing how he pitched after he lost velocity after an injury. 2nd all time in saves to the best closer ever. Those guys should get in. Not fair to compare them to other players. Schilling will get in, he just pissed off sooo many people they will make him wait. Walker is a great case study type guy. He checks a ton of boxes, yet injuries kept his counting numbers down and the Coors Field effect. Not sure he gets voted in, but seems like a slam dunk veterans committee type guy. You can make a really good case for him even with the Coors Field effect.
Fred McGriff honest question why do you think he's a HOF? He seems a notch below based on basically most stats, is it his post season success? What he meant for those Braves teams? Not judging, I certainly add points for that when thinking about Ortiz and Schilling. I just never thought of McGriff as ever being one of the best hitters while he played. More like really really good for a long time.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 26, 2018 8:39:59 GMT -5
493 homers, .284/.377/.509 career slash line, 11 seasons with a bWAR over 2.0, 15 seasons with more than 20 homers. I agree that he was rarely truly great, but at some point if you're very good for a very long time then you deserve consideration. And I wouldn't say I'm a firm yes on him, but if you're someone who really puts a value on that type of consistency? Yeah, I can totally see it someone being like "yeah, an OBP over .375 and SLG over .500 once you get over 10K plate appearances is a Hall of Famer."
But lets be honest - if he's a Hall of Famer, the thing that puts him over the top is the Tom Emanski video.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 26, 2018 10:28:48 GMT -5
The steroid era also hurts McGriff.
His numbers look less impressive compared to the other players that played in that era, unless he was a steroid guy himself.
My guess is that McGriff's best shot of getting in is going to have to come with the veteran's committee.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 26, 2018 10:52:24 GMT -5
I don't get the hate for elite closers. Hoffman was very good for a long time, even changing how he pitched after he lost velocity after an injury. 2nd all time in saves to the best closer ever. Those guys should get in. Not fair to compare them to other players. Why is it not fair to compare closers to other players? That doesn't make any sense. Should we let in the best middle relievers then? The best pinch runners? The best pinch hitters? Is it not fair to compare them to other players who had different roles? I'm actually fine with Hoffman going in, but think that his being in ahead of a number of other players currently on the ballot is silly. And Saves are a silly, silly statistic that have only even been kept track of since 1969. It's a sillier statistic than wins. I couldn't care less about a player's career saves. Francisco Rodriguez (the good one not the guy in camp with the Sox this year) is fourth all-time in the stat, and no way is he a hall-of famer.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,419
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Jan 26, 2018 11:09:54 GMT -5
The steroid era also hurts McGriff. His numbers look less impressive compared to the other players that played in that era, unless he was a steroid guy himself. My guess is that McGriff's best shot of getting in is going to have to come with the veteran's committee. I think players should be considered in context, and the era was a steroids era... but it was also more broadly an era of ridiculous offense. So a guy who hits 25 homeruns in the 1970s is a real slugger. In the 90s? Middling. So to McGriff. I appreciate the accumulation argument, and there is something to it. Thome gets in on that. But McGriff was not a HOF player in his day. Take as an example his 1993 season, when he finished 4th in MVP. Nice numbers, 37 hrs, 101 RBI, .291 ba, .924 ops. But looking at that in context: he finished 4th in hrs, edging out the immortal Phil Plantier, and not in top-10 for ba or offensive WAR. Likely his best season was when he was 25: 3rd in WAR, led in HR and OPS. But even that year,not top 10 in BA or RBI. Perhaps this is all by way of saying that to my mind, to get in the HOF, a player ought to gave a certain longevity but also have at least some sustained period of being among the best players in the league. McGriff has the former, but he lacks the latter.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 26, 2018 11:23:58 GMT -5
The steroid era also hurts McGriff. His numbers look less impressive compared to the other players that played in that era, unless he was a steroid guy himself. My guess is that McGriff's best shot of getting in is going to have to come with the veteran's committee. I think players should be considered in context, and the era was a steroids era... but it was also more broadly an era of ridiculous offense. So a guy who hits 25 homeruns in the 1970s is a real slugger. In the 90s? Middling. So to McGriff. I appreciate the accumulation argument, and there is something to it. Thome gets in on that. But McGriff was not a HOF player in his day. Take as an example his 1993 season, when he finished 4th in MVP. Nice numbers, 37 hrs, 101 RBI, .291 ba, .924 ops. But looking at that in context: he finished 4th in hrs, edging out the immortal Phil Plantier, and not in top-10 for ba or offensive WAR. Likely his best season was when he was 25: 3rd in WAR, led in HR and OPS. But even that year,not top 10 in BA or RBI. Perhaps this is all by way of saying that to my mind, to get in the HOF, a player ought to gave a certain longevity but also have at least some sustained period of being among the best players in the league. McGriff has the former, but he lacks the latter. That is... the opposite of looking at it in context? Because a different player who was in the top ten one of the many years that McGriff was happened to be a poor overall player, then McGriff's home run total is less meaningful? Looking in context would be looking at the fact McGriff only had one more homer than Phil Plantier, but then realizing all of the ways that McGriff was far superior. McGriff also led his league in home runs twice. In 1989, he was, without much question, the best offensive player in the American League. In 1992, he was probably the second best in the NL, behind that Bonds fellow (and arguably behind Sheffield as well). So the idea that he wasn't a better hitter than his peers was nonsense - he peaked in the pre-steroid era or whatever you want to call it. He was a great hitter for a little while, and a good hitter for a very long time. Given that he didn't contribute much other than with the bat, is that enough? I dunno. I feel like there are a lot of offense-first players in the Hall, and I'd like to see it do a better job acknowledging more well-rounded players like Rolen and Whitaker than pushing in the pure bat-first types like McGriff and Sheffield and Ramirez. I've gone back and forth quite a bit on McGriff myself. Come on with this. It's 2018. Leading in OPS despite having a "low" batting average makes it a more impressive feat and having few RBI when you lead in HR and OPS means your team wasted you.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jan 26, 2018 11:30:53 GMT -5
I don't get the hate for elite closers. Hoffman was very good for a long time, even changing how he pitched after he lost velocity after an injury. 2nd all time in saves to the best closer ever. Those guys should get in. Not fair to compare them to other players. Schilling will get in, he just pissed off sooo many people they will make him wait. Walker is a great case study type guy. He checks a ton of boxes, yet injuries kept his counting numbers down and the Coors Field effect. Not sure he gets voted in, but seems like a slam dunk veterans committee type guy. You can make a really good case for him even with the Coors Field effect. Fred McGriff honest question why do you think he's a HOF? He seems a notch below based on basically most stats, is it his post season success? What he meant for those Braves teams? Not judging, I certainly add points for that when thinking about Ortiz and Schilling. I just never thought of McGriff as ever being one of the best hitters while he played. More like really really good for a long time. What you refer to as "hate" I refer to as "less deserving." IMO McGriff is an obvious lock. And is more deserving than Hoffman. Here are some points. It's not one but cumulation. And the links below for the case of McGriff which unlike a poster previously said "it's hard to justify him" - imo it isn't. It's easy. 1-- When we refer to that we need hitting nowadays what stat do we most look at? It's OPS or a variation. And in that stat McGriff's career numbers are elite HOF worthy. IMO this is a prime stat for sluggers/power hitters/and most for good hitters. Just because there is no set "round" number that the media can use - it doesn't mean this stat shouldn't be highly used. 2-- There is a reason why the elite closers this past year and even next will top out at near $20m and not $30m or $35m etc. Their individual affect on the game is not as high as a starting pitcher or position player. 3-- When we look at a guy like Schilling his post season was amazing. Postseason is defining. I get those that may not feel the same. I think they're wrong. While it's not defining for all players for a closer who pitches mostly one inning - he wasn't so hot. Not bad, I'm not saying Hoffman stinks. Postseason counts. Schilling was sensational. Hoffman wasn't very good. Which adds to the point of my point still stands. I think the writers that put Hoffman in over Schilling are out of their minds. I realize it could be because of his off-the-field antics. To me that is dumb. Just as dumb for example for any of the writers that didn't vote for Chipper. 4-- Bottomline is what have we learned about "saves" not so important yet that number is still bandied about. But even in our discussions on this site we don't think much of it. Yet when we speak of hitters and slugging - McGriff is among the games greats in terms of longevity -- and very strong in the stat we value -- OPS or a variation.. Yet we knock him because he didn't hit 500 home runs vs 493. McGriff. I think the articles below especially Verducci's 2 main points below in bold show McGriff should have been an easy lock. He was a big-time career slugger that was a decent hitter too. Anyhow here is the case for McGriff and imo it's strong. bats.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/quirks-of-the-game-the-case-for-fred-mcgriff/ www.si.com/mlb/2017/01/10/hall-fame-against-steroids"1. Only 31 players in baseball history have hit 475 home runs. Every one of them who has been on the ballot and not been connected to steroids is in the Hall of Fame except one: Fred McGriff (he has 493, good for 28th place);"
"2. Only 37 players in baseball history have posted an OPS+ of 129 or more over 10,000 plate appearances—a rare feat of sustained excellence over many years. Every one of them who has been on a ballot and not been connected to steroids is in the Hall of Fame except one: Fred McGriff. (He ranks 24th at 134, better than first-ballot Hall of Famers such as Tony Gwynn, Eddie Murray and Dave Winfield.)."
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 26, 2018 11:42:48 GMT -5
"1. Only 31 players in baseball history have hit 475 home runs. Every one of them who has been on the ballot and not been connected to steroids is in the Hall of Fame except one: Fred McGriff (he has 493, good for 28th place);" I mean... I suppose the counter to that would be that McGriff is the worst player with 475 home runs. Someone has to be the player with the most homers who isn't in the Hall. This is the stronger argument. That his consistent production over a long enough period gives him enough value to make him a Hall of Famer.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,419
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Jan 26, 2018 11:44:42 GMT -5
I think players should be considered in context, and the era was a steroids era... but it was also more broadly an era of ridiculous offense. So a guy who hits 25 homeruns in the 1970s is a real slugger. In the 90s? Middling. So to McGriff. I appreciate the accumulation argument, and there is something to it. Thome gets in on that. But McGriff was not a HOF player in his day. Take as an example his 1993 season, when he finished 4th in MVP. Nice numbers, 37 hrs, 101 RBI, .291 ba, .924 ops. But looking at that in context: he finished 4th in hrs, edging out the immortal Phil Plantier, and not in top-10 for ba or offensive WAR. Likely his best season was when he was 25: 3rd in WAR, led in HR and OPS. But even that year,not top 10 in BA or RBI. Perhaps this is all by way of saying that to my mind, to get in the HOF, a player ought to gave a certain longevity but also have at least some sustained period of being among the best players in the league. McGriff has the former, but he lacks the latter. That is... the opposite of looking at it in context? Because a different player who was in the top ten one of the many years that McGriff was happened to be a poor overall player, then McGriff's home run total is less meaningful? Looking in context would be looking at the fact McGriff only had one more homer than Phil Plantier, but then realizing all of the ways that McGriff was far superior. McGriff also led his league in home runs twice. In 1989, he was, without much question, the best offensive player in the American League. In 1992, he was probably the second best in the NL, behind that Bonds fellow (and arguably behind Sheffield as well). So the idea that he wasn't a better hitter than his peers was nonsense - he peaked in the pre-steroid era or whatever you want to call it. He was a great hitter for a little while, and a good hitter for a very long time. Given that he didn't contribute much other than with the bat, is that enough? I dunno. I feel like there are a lot of offense-first players in the Hall, and I'd like to see it do a better job acknowledging more well-rounded players like Rolen and Whitaker than pushing in the pure bat-first types like McGriff and Sheffield and Ramirez. I've gone back and forth quite a bit on McGriff myself. Come on with this. It's 2018. Leading in OPS despite having a "low" batting average makes it a more impressive feat and having few RBI when you lead in HR and OPS means your team wasted you. My point about context was that these were years when — steroids or no — mediocre players were putting up gaudy numbers. Players who played theough those years and have seasons of 20-30 homeruns are not as impressive as they were before the 1990s. Obviously I don’t mean McGriff was not very good. But if we don’t limit who gets in, if McGriff’s accumulation is the standard, say, then I think there is a case for a lot of guys. For example: McGriff: 2,490 hits, 493 homeruns 1,550 RBI, .284 ba, .886 ops Anders Galarraga: 2,333 hits 399 hrs, 1,425 RBI, .288 ba, .846 ops On top of that, Galaragga’s stretch from 1996-1998 was far, far better than any period of McGriff’s career (obv. 2 seasons in Colorado, but one in Atl). And AG had a pair of Gold Gloves. For all that, he got 4% of the vote his only season on the ballot. Barely a peep. I’m not saying AG should be in either. I’m just saying the offensive numbers from the era are absurd, and players need to stand out more than they have in the past.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 26, 2018 11:48:06 GMT -5
McGriff: 2,490 hits, 493 homeruns 1,550 RBI, .284 ba, .886 ops Anders Galarraga: 2,333 hits 399 hrs, 1,425 RBI, .288 ba, .846 ops Those aren't close. And 30 of the 40-point difference in OPS is in OBP, the much more important stat. The only thing making them appear remotely close is batting average. And, talking about context, Galarraga's 1996 and 1997 came during the full swing of the high-offense era, in the best hitting enviornment in hisotry. McGriff's 1988-1992 came in a much lower offensive era in much more difficult parks, which is why his WAR totals are substantially higher despite him being the lesser defensive player.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,419
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Jan 26, 2018 12:00:33 GMT -5
McGriff: 2,490 hits, 493 homeruns 1,550 RBI, .284 ba, .886 ops Anders Galarraga: 2,333 hits 399 hrs, 1,425 RBI, .288 ba, .846 ops Those aren't close. And 30 of the 40-point difference in OPS is in OBP, the much more important stat. The only thing making them appear remotely close is batting average. And, talking about context, Galarraga's 1996 and 1997 came during the full swing of the high-offense era, in the best hitting enviornment in hisotry. McGriff's 1988-1992 came in a much lower offensive era in much more difficult parks, which is why his WAR totals are substantially higher despite him being the lesser defensive player. That’s fine... but McGriff played in the same years. So if Galarraga’s numbers were inflated, McGriff’s should have had similar benefits. He was 32 years old in 1996 when AG exploded. The point is, these guys had overlapping primes. Yes, McGriff has better career numbers. But are they the line between a 1-ballot guy and a HOFer? It’s also interesting to note that AG significantly beats McGriff in black ink, grey ink, and the hall of fame monitor. The comp is not an absurd one. All I am saying is that we are hitting a time when there will be guys whose career numbers would make them all time greats if the put them up any time before the late 1980s, but now make them just very good players. Edit: and to be really clear: I’m not arguing on AG’s behalf! I don’t think he’s close to HOF. I’m saying both guys were really good but neither makes all-time great level.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jan 26, 2018 12:26:31 GMT -5
"1. Only 31 players in baseball history have hit 475 home runs. Every one of them who has been on the ballot and not been connected to steroids is in the Hall of Fame except one: Fred McGriff (he has 493, good for 28th place);" I mean... I suppose the counter to that would be that McGriff is the worst player with 475 home runs. Someone has to be the player with the most homers who isn't in the Hall. This is the stronger argument. That his consistent production over a long enough period gives him enough value to make him a Hall of Famer. Sure you can counter number 1. But I can counter that. IMO your'e glossing over the numbers 28 and 31 all-time. If you don't think 28/31 "all-time/history-of-the-game" has much validity in terms of home runs -- we can agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 26, 2018 12:44:55 GMT -5
Those aren't close. And 30 of the 40-point difference in OPS is in OBP, the much more important stat. The only thing making them appear remotely close is batting average. And, talking about context, Galarraga's 1996 and 1997 came during the full swing of the high-offense era, in the best hitting enviornment in hisotry. McGriff's 1988-1992 came in a much lower offensive era in much more difficult parks, which is why his WAR totals are substantially higher despite him being the lesser defensive player. That’s fine... but McGriff played in the same years. So if Galarraga’s numbers were inflated, McGriff’s should have had similar benefits. He was 32 years old in 1996 when AG exploded. The point is, these guys had overlapping primes. Yes, McGriff has better career numbers. But are they the line between a 1-ballot guy and a HOFer? It’s also interesting to note that AG significantly beats McGriff in black ink, grey ink, and the hall of fame monitor. The comp is not an absurd one. All I am saying is that we are hitting a time when there will be guys whose career numbers would make them all time greats if the put them up any time before the late 1980s, but now make them just very good players. Edit: and to be really clear: I’m not arguing on AG’s behalf! I don’t think he’s close to HOF. I’m saying both guys were really good but neither makes all-time great level. Why not use stats that are season and league adjusted and let them do the work for you? Galarraga: 118 wRC+ 119 OPS+ McGriff: 134 wRC+ 134 OPS+ IMO, those numbers show way more than black and gray ink Hall of Fame monitors. So does WAR.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,419
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Jan 26, 2018 12:49:44 GMT -5
I mean... I suppose the counter to that would be that McGriff is the worst player with 475 home runs. Someone has to be the player with the most homers who isn't in the Hall. This is the stronger argument. That his consistent production over a long enough period gives him enough value to make him a Hall of Famer. Sure you can counter number 1. But I can counter that. IMO your'e glossing over the numbers 28 and 31 all-time. If you don't think 28/31 "all-time/history-of-the-game" has much validity in terms of home runs -- we can agree to disagree. Well, one could say every eligible player with 450 homeruns that isn’t tainted with steroids is in except McGriff, Carlos Delgado, and Adam Dunn. There will be a line. I remember for years Dave Kingman being the only player with 400+ career homeruns not in. When he retired he was, what,17th all time?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 26, 2018 12:57:52 GMT -5
It’s hilarious to me when people state as a matter of fact that McGriff wasn’t “tainted” by steroids. We’re talking about the guy who had an .858 OPS in 2002 when he was 38, right?
This goes for every player since about 1950, FYI.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,419
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Jan 26, 2018 13:02:05 GMT -5
That’s fine... but McGriff played in the same years. So if Galarraga’s numbers were inflated, McGriff’s should have had similar benefits. He was 32 years old in 1996 when AG exploded. The point is, these guys had overlapping primes. Yes, McGriff has better career numbers. But are they the line between a 1-ballot guy and a HOFer? It’s also interesting to note that AG significantly beats McGriff in black ink, grey ink, and the hall of fame monitor. The comp is not an absurd one. All I am saying is that we are hitting a time when there will be guys whose career numbers would make them all time greats if the put them up any time before the late 1980s, but now make them just very good players. Edit: and to be really clear: I’m not arguing on AG’s behalf! I don’t think he’s close to HOF. I’m saying both guys were really good but neither makes all-time great level. Why not use stats that are season and league adjusted and let them do the work for you? Galarraga: 118 wRC+ 119 OPS+ McGriff: 134 wRC+ 134 OPS+ IMO, those numbers show way more than black and gray ink Hall of Fame monitors. So does WAR. I’m not fighting... but I am trying to understand. The black ink is league adjusted: you are up against all in your league. Are you citing career numbers? And... again... I’m not trying to argue Galarraga is better. I’ve just picked him as a guy who wasn’t even close to the HOF who put up comparable numbers. My point is McGriff doesn’t strike me as far better than a guy who didn’t get through the first ballot. Let me give a different example: Carlos Delgado. Also a first ballot bounce. He played 2 fewer seasons but: McGriff: 2,490 hits 493 hrs, 1,550 rbi .284/.377/.509 Delgado: 2,038 hits, 473 hrs, 1,512 rbi .280/.383/.546 Is the gap so great that one guy is not even worth a second look and the other guy is in? Edit: McGriff career ops+: 134 Delgado career ops+: 138
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 26, 2018 13:07:14 GMT -5
Why not use stats that are season and league adjusted and let them do the work for you? Galarraga: 118 wRC+ 119 OPS+ McGriff: 134 wRC+ 134 OPS+ IMO, those numbers show way more than black and gray ink Hall of Fame monitors. So does WAR. I’m not fighting... but I am trying to understand. The black ink is league adjusted: you are up against all in your league. Are you citing career numbers? And... again... I’m not trying to argue Galarraga is better. I’ve just picked him as a guy who wasn’t even close to the HOF who put up comparable numbers. My point is McGriff doesn’t strike me as far better than a guy who didn’t get through the first ballot. Let me give a different example: Carlos Delgado. Also a first ballot bounce. He played 2 fewer seasons but: McGriff: 2,490 hits 493 hrs, 1,550 rbi .284/.377/.509 Delgado: 2,038 hits, 473 hrs, 1,512 rbi .280/.383/.546 Is the gap so great that one guy is not even worth a second look and the other guy is in? So whoever wins the HR title in the NL this year should be given credit for Stanton being traded to the AL? And if a player finishes too low to get a point in the AL just because Stanton is now in the AL? I just don't buy the black ink/gray ink tracking. wRC+ and OPS+ are about as good as it gets right now for judging hitting performance so I don't see the point in trying to come up with anything new that disproves them. They can't be discredited by talking about hits, hr, rbi and ops. These arguments have already taken place for at least a decade by people way smarter than we are. The gap is huge for wRC+ and OPS+ and WAR between Galarraga and McGriff. And yeah, those were career numbers. By the way, Galarraga is hurt by the fact that he only had one very good season before age 32. Also, he had pretty awful walk rates.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 26, 2018 13:16:19 GMT -5
Why not use stats that are season and league adjusted and let them do the work for you? Galarraga: 118 wRC+ 119 OPS+ McGriff: 134 wRC+ 134 OPS+ IMO, those numbers show way more than black and gray ink Hall of Fame monitors. So does WAR. I’m not fighting... but I am trying to understand. The black ink is league adjusted: you are up against all in your league. Are you citing career numbers? And... again... I’m not trying to argue Galarraga is better. I’ve just picked him as a guy who wasn’t even close to the HOF who put up comparable numbers. My point is McGriff doesn’t strike me as far better than a guy who didn’t get through the first ballot. Let me give a different example: Carlos Delgado. Also a first ballot bounce. He played 2 fewer seasons but: McGriff: 2,490 hits 493 hrs, 1,550 rbi .284/.377/.509 Delgado: 2,038 hits, 473 hrs, 1,512 rbi .280/.383/.546 Is the gap so great that one guy is not even worth a second look and the other guy is in? Edit: McGriff career ops+: 134 Delgado career ops+: 138 If you were trying to reinforce the point several people made that McGriff peaking just before the high-powered offensive era (or "steroid" era, or whatever) has hurt his standing, you're doing a great job. Offense started picking up in 1993. McGriffs peak was basically 1988 to 1993. That's why his counting stats are about in line with players like Delgado, but his value stats, like WAR, OPS+, wRC+, wOBA, etc. are higher. From 1988 to 1993, McGriff was among the best players in baseball, because he was able to hit 35 homers a year in a tougher environment. While Carlos Delgado was hitting 35 homers a year during an era when everyone was doing so. And I'm not bringing steroids into this, just comparing environments and their value in them. This is the thing that I really, really like about WAR calculations as a general shorthand. They help provide context. It's like, "wait, why was McGriff's peak showing so much more value than these other guys who put up similar numbers." All that said, I think Delgado deserved a longer look. I'd be a no on him, but I think people could make a fair case for him as being as deserving as the Perez/Cepeda borderline types who made it in.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jan 26, 2018 13:23:49 GMT -5
Sure you can counter number 1. But I can counter that. IMO your'e glossing over the numbers 28 and 31 all-time. If you don't think 28/31 "all-time/history-of-the-game" has much validity in terms of home runs -- we can agree to disagree. Well, one could say every eligible player with 450 homeruns that isn’t tainted with steroids is in except McGriff, Carlos Delgado, and Adam Dunn. There will be a line. I remember for years Dave Kingman being the only player with 400+ career homeruns not in. When he retired he was, what,17th all time? Sure if you want to isolate the statement without using it in context. Adam Dunn's single best hitting year was .267. McGriff's career is .284. That was one point - not the only point I made. You can't go and disregard his OPS numbers too and just isolate the one home-run statement. A slugger with a high career OPS that hit pretty well is deserving. Again- what do we all look at now? We look mostly at OPS or a variation as to evaluate a hitter, mostly. Don't we? 1-- Hitting 493 home runs is great. Whether it is 28/31 -- it is great. That is the takeaway. 2-- Then add in OPS was so consistent and up there at elite/near elite status. 3-- And add in pretty good hitting. So you have a strong home run hitter, an excellent OPS guy and a pretty good hitter (i.e. not one dimensional like Dunn or Kingman) 4-- Add in Dunn never played in the post season and Kingman only once in his rookie season - while McGriff did pretty well in the post season. As for Delgado-- maybe he should have been in at some point?
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,419
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Jan 26, 2018 13:44:43 GMT -5
I’m not fighting... but I am trying to understand. The black ink is league adjusted: you are up against all in your league. Are you citing career numbers? And... again... I’m not trying to argue Galarraga is better. I’ve just picked him as a guy who wasn’t even close to the HOF who put up comparable numbers. My point is McGriff doesn’t strike me as far better than a guy who didn’t get through the first ballot. Let me give a different example: Carlos Delgado. Also a first ballot bounce. He played 2 fewer seasons but: McGriff: 2,490 hits 493 hrs, 1,550 rbi .284/.377/.509 Delgado: 2,038 hits, 473 hrs, 1,512 rbi .280/.383/.546 Is the gap so great that one guy is not even worth a second look and the other guy is in? Edit: McGriff career ops+: 134 Delgado career ops+: 138 If you were trying to reinforce the point several people made that McGriff peaking just before the high-powered offensive era (or "steroid" era, or whatever) has hurt his standing, you're doing a great job. Offense started picking up in 1993. McGriffs peak was basically 1988 to 1993. That's why his counting stats are about in line with players like Delgado, but his value stats, like WAR, OPS+, wRC+, wOBA, etc. are higher. From 1988 to 1993, McGriff was among the best players in baseball, because he was able to hit 35 homers a year in a tougher environment. While Carlos Delgado was hitting 35 homers a year during an era when everyone was doing so. And I'm not bringing steroids into this, just comparing environments and their value in them. This is the thing that I really, really like about WAR calculations as a general shorthand. They help provide context. It's like, "wait, why was McGriff's peak showing so much more value than these other guys who put up similar numbers." All that said, I think Delgado deserved a longer look. I'd be a no on him, but I think people could make a fair case for him as being as deserving as the Perez/Cepeda borderline types who made it in. If it is a contest, I am losing in snark, indeed. To emphasize again: I’m not advocating than ANY of these guys should be in. On the contrary, I am saying this was an era of McGriffs, Galaraggas, Delgados, Konerkos... and for that reason, the bar should be higher. A really excellent player like Steve Garvey looks absurd in direct comparison, yet... In terms of prime, let’s posit McGriff had strong “presteroid” numbers. But not enough to merit HOF. So he needs to sustain it. And, as a candidate who amassed the bulk of his numbers in that offensive era, he really should have feasted (unless one wants to make the case that his LACK of a monster year in those seasons shows he was all-natural). As for the stats you cite: well, Delgado, for one, is better than McGriff in all but WAR. Now... not to set off further sniping, but I am somewhat suspicious of WAR, based on my Kevin Keirmeier rule. He inexplicably had a WAR of 7.3 in 2015 when he had this line: 10 hr 40 rbi 18/23 sb .263/.298/.420 99 ops+ Granted he won the gold glove so most of his WAR was D. But then that makes me more suspicious: he had a 5 dWAR. That is 2.5 times better than JBJ’s best. Jeez, how good was he defensively? (He had a ton of assists, but his fielding % was .988). All I’m saying is I put less faith in WAR than many, because the calculations can be... counterintuitive, let’s say. I appreciate the passion, and I see this as all in fun... in the end, it doesn’t matter. People value different things, and that’s the fun of sport. I think I have a lofty ideal for the HOF and would be so selective I’d go years without voting for anyone. So maybe that explains my position more than anything else.
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,799
Member is Online
|
Post by mobaz on Jan 26, 2018 14:39:22 GMT -5
Obviously a huge factor in the debate is what you think the Hall of Fame is. I believe that the Hall of Fame should capture the best players of a particular era, providing a snapshot in time of baseball during that time. Being (capital A) Amazing over a period of time counts, as does being really really good consistently. I think writers and VCs should look over time and see where are consistent blindspots (positions, eras, "types" of players) and make sure the Hall represents that era well. Not sure it always does. Worthy reading on HoF standards, highlighting the difference in standards between writers and VCs and how the VCs have significantly lowered the threshold of what HoF is: www.theringer.com/mlb/2017/12/22/16809230/mlb-hall-of-fame-votingI guess I generally advocate for a bigger Hall, but then I see induction classes like Biggio, Randy Johnson, Pedro and Smoltz, and it's really easy to say that's a HOF class. Those were the best of the best, easy. I look at VC inductees like Trammell and Morris and don't feel the same way.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,419
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Jan 26, 2018 14:50:22 GMT -5
Obviously a huge factor in the debate is what you think the Hall of Fame is. I believe that the Hall of Fame should capture the best players of a particular era, providing a snapshot in time of baseball during that time. Being (capital A) Amazing over a period of time counts, as does being really really good consistently. I think writers and VCs should look over time and see where are consistent blindspots (positions, eras, "types" of players) and make sure the Hall represents that era well. Not sure it always does. Worthy reading on HoF standards, highlighting the difference in standards between writers and VCs and how the VCs have significantly lowered the threshold of what HoF is: www.theringer.com/mlb/2017/12/22/16809230/mlb-hall-of-fame-votingI guess I generally advocate for a bigger Hall, but then I see induction classes like Biggio, Randy Johnson, Pedro and Smoltz, and it's really easy to say that's a HOF class. Those were the best of the best, easy. I look at VC inductees like Trammell and Morris and don't feel the same way. I feel exactly like you re: the eye test. And I guess, sure, there is a lot of room below Randy Johnson, one of the handful of best pitchers ever. But where is the floor? It is also generational, I think. Those Tiger teams... I was mildly in favor of Morris, even though his numbers are not gaudy because of what it was like to see him pitch. He was a winner. Is that defensible? Almost certainly not. There is, at least to my mind, a kind of aura, the old feeling of wanting this guy’s baseball card, of running after him for an autograph etc. Again... not a real or measurable standard, but I am a romantic like that (having, as a child, chased down many a player in hotel lobbies, streets, etc. for autographs). Edit: thanks for the link. That is really interesting. A really stark difference.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 26, 2018 15:05:08 GMT -5
Regarding Trevor Hoffman and every other closer, remember that they weren’t good enough to be starters.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 26, 2018 16:53:58 GMT -5
I don't get the hate for elite closers. Hoffman was very good for a long time, even changing how he pitched after he lost velocity after an injury. 2nd all time in saves to the best closer ever. Those guys should get in. Not fair to compare them to other players. Why is it not fair to compare closers to other players? That doesn't make any sense. Should we let in the best middle relievers then? The best pinch runners? The best pinch hitters? Is it not fair to compare them to other players who had different roles? I'm actually fine with Hoffman going in, but think that his being in ahead of a number of other players currently on the ballot is silly. And Saves are a silly, silly statistic that have only even been kept track of since 1969. It's a sillier statistic than wins. I couldn't care less about a player's career saves. Francisco Rodriguez (the good one not the guy in camp with the Sox this year) is fourth all-time in the stat, and no way is he a hall-of famer. Mainly because from the way we judge value they will never compare. Though recently with things like the fangraph article showing how elite relievers are under valued things seem to be changing. Just not a players career war total. The HOF is for the best players, so the best closer or relief pitchers should be there. If you had a guy spend his career as a dominant middle reliever than yes, but that almost never happens. They are made closers. The best pinch runners? Come on, hope that was a joke. He'd have to be one heck of a base runner, I've yet to see a guy like that. See that's the issue I have, you have no problem with Hoffman, yet have a problem with it. Hoffman is being compared to other relievers and how dominant he was for so long, not to a player like McGriff. McGriff is being compared to other 1st baseman, which is 100% fair in my book. I agree that saves aren't a great stat, but you can't deny that counting stats have always mattered to the HOF. Add the saves to his long great career and he's a HOF in my book. He's not K-Rod, who just wasn't dominate for long enough.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 26, 2018 17:18:52 GMT -5
I don't get the hate for elite closers. Hoffman was very good for a long time, even changing how he pitched after he lost velocity after an injury. 2nd all time in saves to the best closer ever. Those guys should get in. Not fair to compare them to other players. Schilling will get in, he just pissed off sooo many people they will make him wait. Walker is a great case study type guy. He checks a ton of boxes, yet injuries kept his counting numbers down and the Coors Field effect. Not sure he gets voted in, but seems like a slam dunk veterans committee type guy. You can make a really good case for him even with the Coors Field effect. Fred McGriff honest question why do you think he's a HOF? He seems a notch below based on basically most stats, is it his post season success? What he meant for those Braves teams? Not judging, I certainly add points for that when thinking about Ortiz and Schilling. I just never thought of McGriff as ever being one of the best hitters while he played. More like really really good for a long time. What you refer to as "hate" I refer to as "less deserving." IMO McGriff is an obvious lock. And is more deserving than Hoffman. Here are some points. It's not one but cumulation. And the links below for the case of McGriff which unlike a poster previously said "it's hard to justify him" - imo it isn't. It's easy. 1-- When we refer to that we need hitting nowadays what stat do we most look at? It's OPS or a variation. And in that stat McGriff's career numbers are elite HOF worthy. IMO this is a prime stat for sluggers/power hitters/and most for good hitters. Just because there is no set "round" number that the media can use - it doesn't mean this stat shouldn't be highly used. 2-- There is a reason why the elite closers this past year and even next will top out at near $20m and not $30m or $35m etc. Their individual affect on the game is not as high as a starting pitcher or position player. 3-- When we look at a guy like Schilling his post season was amazing. Postseason is defining. I get those that may not feel the same. I think they're wrong. While it's not defining for all players for a closer who pitches mostly one inning - he wasn't so hot. Not bad, I'm not saying Hoffman stinks. Postseason counts. Schilling was sensational. Hoffman wasn't very good. Which adds to the point of my point still stands. I think the writers that put Hoffman in over Schilling are out of their minds. I realize it could be because of his off-the-field antics. To me that is dumb. Just as dumb for example for any of the writers that didn't vote for Chipper. 4-- Bottomline is what have we learned about "saves" not so important yet that number is still bandied about. But even in our discussions on this site we don't think much of it. Yet when we speak of hitters and slugging - McGriff is among the games greats in terms of longevity -- and very strong in the stat we value -- OPS or a variation.. Yet we knock him because he didn't hit 500 home runs vs 493. McGriff. I think the articles below especially Verducci's 2 main points below in bold show McGriff should have been an easy lock. He was a big-time career slugger that was a decent hitter too. Anyhow here is the case for McGriff and imo it's strong. bats.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/quirks-of-the-game-the-case-for-fred-mcgriff/ www.si.com/mlb/2017/01/10/hall-fame-against-steroids"1. Only 31 players in baseball history have hit 475 home runs. Every one of them who has been on the ballot and not been connected to steroids is in the Hall of Fame except one: Fred McGriff (he has 493, good for 28th place);"
"2. Only 37 players in baseball history have posted an OPS+ of 129 or more over 10,000 plate appearances—a rare feat of sustained excellence over many years. Every one of them who has been on a ballot and not been connected to steroids is in the Hall of Fame except one: Fred McGriff. (He ranks 24th at 134, better than first-ballot Hall of Famers such as Tony Gwynn, Eddie Murray and Dave Winfield.)."
It's the age old debate about being great versus being very good for a long time. McGriff was very good for a loooong time, but never really great for a long stretch. He only had 4 seasons where he was top 10 in war, his career war total is very low for the HOF. That's what that second stat at the bottom is all about, how long he played, because not many players get 10,000 plate appearances. I was very young during the Braves run, I remember it, but didn't watch a crap load of games. I just remember a very good player that was on some loaded teams. If he had a ton of key hits that helped them, it certainly helps his case. He has good stats, but did he have games like Schilling and the bloody sock? I mean Schilling was like the definition of big game pitcher, just like Ortiz as a clutch hitter. Those guys weren't just good in the playoffs, they had stretches that were brillant.
|
|
|