Is Fred McGriff in the HOF if the 1994 strike doesn't happen?

FL4WL3SS · Mar 31, 2015

I think the fact that he played for 7 teams really hurts him (which is stupid). He was never considered the marquee player on any of those teams. I think if he had stayed a Brave, he would most definitely be in. Going to Tampa unfairly killed his chances, IMO.

grimshaw · Mar 31, 2015

Never mind.

Rice4HOF · Mar 31, 2015

FL4WL3SS said:
.....Going to Tampa unfairly killed his chances, IMO.

Yep. I voted for him with my BBA vote, but pointed out that playing in places like Toronto, San Diego and Tampa probably don't help anyone's chances. http://rubensbaseball.blogspot.ca/2013/12/2014-hall-of-fame-part-ii-canadians.html?m=1

SeanBerry · Mar 31, 2015

Laddie: This is something I believe VERY STRONGLY in and if you read my Twitter HOF time, I think I rant about it like 23% of the time. I think my wife thinks I am a lunatic every January and want Crime Dog McGruff to be in the Hall.

His detractors say stupid shit like he never hit 40 home runs. He had his peak in a different era. If he has his 1988-93 production from say 1998-2004, he soars over 500 home runs. No player who is in the HOF discussion was more screwed by steroid guys than McGriff.

Morgan's Magic Snowplow · Apr 1, 2015

I don't think its as simple as saying "McGriff got screwed by the cheaters" because, as with a huge number of players from that era, we really have no idea whether or not McGriff used steroids. I'm not saying that he's guilty by any means. But the testing back then was shitty/non-existant enough that inferring innocence (and thus that his 493 HR are absolutely legitimate, and should not have to be compared to the totals of players who are tainted) from the lack of a positive test is pretty dubious, especially for a guy who left the game in 2004 so never played under the testing regime that was implemented in 2005. McGriff got close to 500 HR but we really have no clue whether about a third of those were "clean" HRs or not. His production reflected a pretty standard aging curve until about 1998, with declining power in his 30s, and then his power came back with a vengeance in his age 35+ seasons. Maybe he figured something out and rediscovered his HR stroke. Maybe he talked to a few shady doctors down in Tampa. Personally, I think steroids should have no role in these decisions about the Hall of Fame at all. But if you're going to give them a role, then you have to be skeptical about all production during that 1997-2004 period, not just the guys who happened to have Jose Canseco mention them in a book or get caught after 2005 (or just looked too jacked up, like Jeff Bagwell).

SeanBerry · Apr 1, 2015

Or maybe expansion diluted the pitching and offensive numbers went up (or for McGriff helped delayed the aging process?). His power came back in his Age 35 season but it was also his 2nd year in the AL. It typically takes a guy a year to learn the pitchers in a new league.

Making up "shady doctors in Tampa" to throw steriod shade at McGriff is bullshit.

Kliq · Apr 1, 2015

SeanBerry said:
Laddie: This is something I believe VERY STRONGLY in and if you read my Twitter HOF time, I think I rant about it like 23% of the time. I think my wife thinks I am a lunatic every January and want Crime Dog McGruff to be in the Hall.

His detractors say stupid shit like he never hit 40 home runs. He had his peak in a different era. If he has his 1988-93 production from say 1998-2004, he soars over 500 home runs. No player who is in the HOF discussion was more screwed by steroid guys than McGriff.

Not disagreeing with you, but Bagwell is also up there. McGriff is just another case of the voters being lazy and relying on seemingly trivial things to value a players worth.

smastroyin · Apr 1, 2015

I think MMP's point is not specifically to throw shade on McGriff, it's to throw shade on the argument of "McGriff would be in because the only guys like him who aren't in the HoF are steroid guys"

I think McGriff should be in, and I think Laddie's argument is somewhat compelling. That said, it would carry more weight if he were closer in votes. I'm a big believer in the round numbers theory with the way these votes go, but even BBWAA voters understand the 493 isn't much different than 500, and certain 2490 isn't different than 2500. If he were at Carlos Delgado numbers (473/just over 2000) then I would buy the argument that missing his best half season kept him out. Instead, I think the fact is that he had some pretty incredible peers and therefore gets knocked down a peg.

McGriff (and Delgado) are pretty good cautionary tales for Ortiz's chances, though he has all the post-season stuff to stick in people's minds.

Morgan's Magic Snowplow · Apr 1, 2015

SeanBerry said:
Or maybe expansion diluted the pitching and offensive numbers went up (or for McGriff helped delayed the aging process?). His power came back in his Age 35 season but it was also his 2nd year in the AL. It typically takes a guy a year to learn the pitchers in a new league.

Making up "shady doctors in Tampa" to throw steriod shade at McGriff is bullshit.

Sigh.

smastroyin said:
I think MMP's point is not specifically to throw shade on McGriff, it's to throw shade on the argument of "McGriff would be in because the only guys like him who aren't in the HoF are steroid guys"

Exactly. The idea that we can confidently draw a bright line between steroid guys and non-steroid guys and consider the former to have tainted numbers that can be discarded and the latter to have absolutely legitimate numbers might be comforting to some people but it just doesn't make much sense.

John Marzano Olympic Hero · Apr 1, 2015

If you like Fred McGriff, FF to about 6:30 from this YouTube clip of a TWIB from August 1989. He hits an absolute bomb off Rick Rhoden when he was a rookie.

Not to get off on a tangent, but I miss This Week in Baseball.

CarolinaBeerGuy · Apr 2, 2015

Interesting to watch him before he started the using his signature helicopter finish.

HillysLastWalk · Apr 2, 2015

Imagine if McGriff had some of the same heroics for the Boston Red Sox as David Ortiz (who I definitely feel is a Hall-Of-Fame player).

Now, let's compare their numbers:

McGriff: 284/377/509, OPS+ 134, 2490 H, 441 2b, 493 HR, 1349 R, 1550 RBI (2460 Games, 10,174 PA's)
Ortiz: 285/379/547, OPS+ 139 2159 H, 547 2b, 466 HR, 1267 R, 1533 RBI (2111 Games, 8851 PA's)

Red(s)HawksFan · Apr 2, 2015

HillysLastWalk said:
Imagine if McGriff had some of the same heroics for the Boston Red Sox as David Ortiz (who I definitely feel is a Hall-Of-Fame player).

Now, let's compare their numbers:

McGriff: 284/377/509, OPS+ 134, 2490 H, 441 2b, 493 HR, 1349 R, 1550 RBI (2460 Games, 10,174 PA's)
Ortiz: 285/379/547, OPS+ 139 2159 H, 547 2b, 466 HR, 1267 R, 1533 RBI (2111 Games, 8851 PA's)

The only reason some of those numbers are as close as they are is the difference in games and plate appearances. Give Ortiz the extra 2.5 seasons worth of play that McGriff has on him, and I think he'd be ahead in every category, significantly so in some of them. I don't think the heroics is the only difference maker between the two.

SeanBerry · Apr 2, 2015

...and McGriff has a higher WAR (52-47) because he played first base and not DH. He didn't play first base very well but at least he was out there.

And he had postseason success of his own too! He won a title in 1995 and has a lifetime playoff slugging percentage of .532. He even has 4 homers in only 12 World Series games.

Red(s)HawksFan · Apr 2, 2015

SeanBerry said:
...and McGriff has a higher WAR (52-47) because he played first base and not DH. He didn't play first base very well but at least he was out there.

And he had postseason success of his own too! He won a title in 1995 and has a lifetime playoff slugging percentage of .532. He even has 4 homers in only 12 World Series games.

Again, games played makes a difference here. WAR is an accumulating stat. That McGriff has a 5 WAR advantage is due entirely to playing more than two seasons worth of games more than Ortiz has, not because he played more games in the field defensively.

HillysLastWalk · Apr 2, 2015

Red(s)HawksFan said:
The only reason some of those numbers are as close as they are is the difference in games and plate appearances. Give Ortiz the extra 2.5 seasons worth of play that McGriff has on him, and I think he'd be ahead in every category, significantly so in some of them. I don't think the heroics is the only difference maker between the two.

So how does the extra Plate Appearances account for virtually the same Batting Average and On Base Pct? So the numbers like hits and walks would be almost exact, if they had the same amount of PA's. According to B-ref, Ortiz is 6th in his Similarity Score section.

What we see is that they were a similar hitter, but Ortiz had more power (16.25 HR/AB vs 17.76 HR/AB; 262 ISO vs 225 ISO). Though a lot of that manifests itself in much more doubles - and Ortiz did play a lot of his games in Fenway, which is a doubles park. How would McGriff do if he had the chance to go the other way against that Wall? Plus, McGriff did play in Atlanta and San Diego for a majority of his career - how do those parks compare to Fenway?

So this is why I introduced the OPS+ number. 139 vs 134. And baseball reference is failing me right now. I click on Career OPS+ leaders and I get nothing. I wanted to figure out how wide a gap there is between 139 and 134, but can't right now. Booo.

Lastly, I didn't include defense (or base running, which is probably negligible) - which may or may not close the gap in McGriff's favor.

SirPsychoSquints · Apr 2, 2015

http://bbref.com/pi/shareit/5HbFv

Minimum 3000 PAs, Ortiz is 65th and McGriff is 98th.

HillysLastWalk · Apr 2, 2015

Red(s)HawksFan said:
Again, games played makes a difference here. WAR is an accumulating stat. That McGriff has a 5 WAR advantage is due entirely to playing more than two seasons worth of games more than Ortiz has, not because he played more games in the field defensively.

Ortiz fWAR - 43.4
McGriff fWAR - 56.9

Ortiz has one fWAR above 6 (6.3), last three years were 2.3, 3.4, and 3.0. Two seasons of 2013 Ortiz won't make up the difference.

(I haven't looked at bWAR, and I also think that WAR unfairly hurts a DH, but that's a less-thought out on my part topic for another day).

HillysLastWalk · Apr 2, 2015

SirPsychoSquints said:
http://bbref.com/pi/shareit/5HbFv

Minimum 3000 PAs, Ortiz is 65th and McGriff is 98th.

I seriously need to learn this PlayIndex tool (have never used it).

I just scanned that list, and to digress, man, Jim Thome. That's going to be an interesting one. Over 600 HR's and an OPS+ of 147 (34th on that list).

I also love seeing Votto's name at 23rd(!!!) while we are in the midst of that Brandon Phillips/Votto bullshit.

OPS+ isn't adjusted for era, am I right in thinking that (yes, I know google exists)? What are some era-adjusted stats people are using?

SirPsychoSquints · Apr 2, 2015

HillysLastWalk said:
I seriously need to learn this PlayIndex tool (have never used it).

I just scanned that list, and to digress, man, Jim Thome. That's going to be an interesting one. Over 600 HR's and an OPS+ of 147 (34th on that list).

I also love seeing Votto's name at 23rd(!!!) while we are in the midst of that Brandon Phillips/Votto bullshit.

OPS+ isn't adjusted for era, am I right in thinking that (yes, I know google exists)? What are some era-adjusted stats people are using?

Yes, OPS+ is adjusted for era.

HillysLastWalk · Apr 2, 2015

SirPsychoSquints said:
Yes, OPS+ is adjusted for era.

Yup (and thanks for filling in the gaps here! I especially liked the quick OPS+ scan you put together while I was having technical difficulties).

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/offense/ops/

Since OPS+ adjusts for league and park effects, it’s possible to use OPS+ to compare players from different years and on different teams.

Rice4HOF · Apr 2, 2015

CaptainLaddie said:
OPS+ is adjusted for league and park, but if I remember right, an OPS+ of 100 in the AL is not the same as an OPS+ in the NL?

Or am I crazy?

You are correct. It's adjusted for each individual league, so they are different.

But I don't think the 2 questions you asked are mutually exclusive, and I don't have enough info to diagnose whether you are in fact crazy or not.

ngruz25 · Apr 4, 2015

I'm curious as to how many wall ball doubles Ortiz has at Fenway. I'm guessing it won't be many. Just as Adrian Gonzalez saw many would-be extra base hits go for long singles, I'm sure Ortiz hasn't seen his doubles total boosted by the Monster.

SirPsychoSquints · Apr 4, 2015

ngruz25 said:
I'm curious as to how many wall ball doubles Ortiz has at Fenway. I'm guessing it won't be many. Just as Adrian Gonzalez saw many would-be extra base hits go for long singles, I'm sure Ortiz hasn't seen his doubles total boosted by the Monster.

If I'm doing this right, he's hit 72 doubles to the opposite field at Fenway in his career. Also 66 singles, 21 HRs and 149 outs to LF at Fenway, I'm not sure if that exactly answers a question, though.

SumnerH · Apr 4, 2015

SirPsychoSquints said:
Yes, OPS+ is adjusted for era.

No, it isn't. It's park and league-adjusted. League average is always 100, there's no attempt at making cross-era comparisons at all meaningful.

SirPsychoSquints · Apr 4, 2015

SumnerH said:
No, it isn't. It's park and league-adjusted. League average is always 100, there's no attempt at making cross-era comparisons at all meaningful.

Sure - by definition 100 is always average, no matter the league or year. So 110 is always 10% better than average, unless I misunderstood the question.

Red(s)HawksFan · Apr 4, 2015

SirPsychoSquints said:
Sure - by definition 100 is always average, no matter the league or year. So 110 is always 10% better than average, unless I misunderstood the question.

Average for the year in question, which varies from year to year. 100 OPS+ in 1978 is not equivalent to 100 OPS+ in 2003 is not equivalent to 100 OPS+ in 2014.

SirPsychoSquints · Apr 4, 2015

Red(s)HawksFan said:
Average for the year in question, which varies from year to year. 100 OPS+ in 1978 is not equivalent to 100 OPS+ in 2003 is not equivalent to 100 OPS+ in 2014.

Right - in 1978 AL, a .708 OPS qualified as 100 OPS+, in 2003 AL it was .776 and in 2014 AL it was .727 (approximately in each case). OPS+ allows you to compare these across eras by saying they're each average for their league, when looking at the raw number would make it seem like the Jose Valentin performance in 2003 was better than the others. Thus, OPS+ adjusts for era. If that doesn't adjust for era, what does?

SumnerH · Apr 4, 2015

SirPsychoSquints said:
Right - in 1978 AL, a .708 OPS qualified as 100 OPS+, in 2003 AL it was .776 and in 2014 AL it was .727 (approximately in each case). OPS+ allows you to compare these across eras by saying they're each average for their league, when looking at the raw number would make it seem like the Jose Valentin performance in 2003 was better than the others. Thus, OPS+ adjusts for era. If that doesn't adjust for era, what does?

Knowing that one player is average for his league/era and another is average for his league/era doesn't help you compare players unless you know the relative strengths of the two leagues.

And OPS+ of 100 in AAA or in the MLB in 1989 can't be compared meaningfully to a 100 in 2004 in the majors.

An era-adjustment would be an attempt at an MLE-style adjustment such that stats could be compared between eras:

OPS+ attempts no such thing.

HillysLastWalk · Apr 4, 2015

then why does that fangraphs link I posted say the following:

Since OPS+ adjusts for league and park effects, its possible to use OPS+ to compare players from different years and on different teams.

Am I misreading it, but doesnt compare players from different years mean ... comparing era's?

Regardless, here is an article where they are trying to compare single seasons and they use wOBA and a standard deviation: http://www.hardballtimes.com/is-there-a-better-way-of-comparing-players-between-historical-eras/

SumnerH · Apr 4, 2015

HillysLastWalk said:
then why does that fangraphs link I posted say the following:

Since OPS+ adjusts for league and park effects, it’s possible to use OPS+ to compare players from different years and on different teams.

Am I misreading it, but doesnt compare players from different years mean ... comparing era's?

You'd have to ask them what they mean by that. It doesn't make much sense to me.

John Morill OPS+ing 102 in 1877 doesn't mean that he's as good a hitter as Dustin Pedroia OPS'ing 101 in 2014, it just means that they both hit close to what their own league average was. But the quality of play has risen dramatically since Morill's time--a difference in eras that OPS+ doesn't pretend to address.

That to me isn't era-adjusted; an era-adjustment would be something like MLEs, but for different years in the majors.

HillysLastWalk · Apr 4, 2015

Yeah, I thought that was odd. But you are right, it would be hard to compare different era's without the "width" (as that article I linked to also explained).

Is Fred McGriff in the HOF if the 1994 strike doesn't happen?

dj paul pfieffer

Member

Member

Member

Knows about the CBA.

Member

Knows about the CBA.

Member

simpering whimperer

Member

has fancy plans, and pants to match

Don't know him from Adam

Banned

Member

Knows about the CBA.

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

dj paul pfieffer

Member

Bibby

Member

Malt Liquor Picker

Member

Member

Member

Malt Liquor Picker

Banned

Malt Liquor Picker

Banned