2010 HoF Ballot

[Shooty]

Larkin will get in 1st ballot. . . he has the stats and the intangible stuff

I don't think so.  He was good for a SS, but his stats aren't very impressive (especially given the era he played in).  Less than 200 HRs, under 1000 RBI, under .300 for his career.  Never had a 100 RBI season.  Only scored 100 runs twice.  He might have had the intangibles, but those aren't HOF stats for a guy that played 19 seasons.  He'll get in, but not first ballot.

"Intangibles" aside, he put up a .371 OBP with power from a defense-first position, while playing good defense, too.  He was easily the best shortstop in baseball for about a decade.

Also, it's depressing that people still think runs and RBI are actually useful ways to measure how good a player is.

Hey, I'm just tellign you WHY it will take a while for him to get it the Hall.  The other thing that will hurt him is that with guys like HanRam, A Rod, Ripken etc, the position of SS has evolved in most people's minds.  So the fact Larkin played SS will help his odds, but not to the same degree if those other guys didn't come along.

[Reds]

Larkin was fucking great.  Far superior to Ozzie Smith.

[BeefMaster]

Hey, I'm just tellign you WHY it will take a while for him to get it the Hall.  The other thing that will hurt him is that with guys like HanRam, A Rod, Ripken etc, the position of SS has evolved in most people's minds.  So the fact Larkin played SS will help his odds, but not to the same degree if those other guys didn't come along.

I'm in agreement with you there - a lot of his value was walks and non-homer extra-base hits, which the voters don't give as much weight to.

[Nacho]

   G    PA     AB    R     H    2B 3B  HR    RBI  SB CS   BB    SO   BA   OBP SLG  OPS OPS+ TB 


2588 9686 8197 1229 2211 353 46 521 1555 26 22 1345 1550 .270 .374 .515 .889 147 4219

2360 9026 7927 1195 2232 423 55 475 1540 17 16  937  1936 .282 .360 .529 .889 147 4190 

2460 10174 8757 1349 2490 441 24 493 1550 72 38 1305 1882 .284 .377 .509 .886 134 4458


This is a statline comparison of Willie McCovey, Willie Stargell, and Fred McGriff respectively.  The only major difference is that Fred McGriff isn't named Willie.  Both McCovey and Stargell are in the HOF, so I don't see why McGriff would not be.  At one time, conventional wisdom would be that he had power, but not enough compared to McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, etc.  However, all of those guys have been exposed as steroid users.  McGriff put up HOF-ish numbers without any shadow of steroid use.  I think that the comparison to the guys who are already in + the lack of steroid scandal should get him in.  However, I would not be shocked if he does not make it.

While it's a good point with the shockingly close numbers, you can't compare players of different eras with straight stats.  McGriff played in a powerful era and he simply wasn't at the cream of the crop among his peers imo.  The OPS+ is telling about the eras...

EDF's point, I think, is that the era was steroid-plagued (the reason, at least in part, for inflated numbers), yet McGriff hasn't been under serious scrutiny for this.  His numbers are clean (or at least seen to be), and that should compensate for the fact that he was just very good (not spectacular) for his era.

[Nacho]

Larkin was fucking great.  Far superior to Ozzie Smith.

Cut it out.

[Reds]

not gonna rehash this argument....but Ozzie Smith has no business in the HOF.  And Larkin was VASTLY superior to him offensively, and an equal defensively. 

[Shooty]

not gonna rehash this argument....but Ozzie Smith has no business in the HOF.  And Larkin did far fewer backflips.

[Gantry]

   G    PA     AB    R     H    2B 3B  HR    RBI  SB CS   BB    SO   BA   OBP SLG  OPS OPS+ TB 


2588 9686 8197 1229 2211 353 46 521 1555 26 22 1345 1550 .270 .374 .515 .889 147 4219

2360 9026 7927 1195 2232 423 55 475 1540 17 16  937  1936 .282 .360 .529 .889 147 4190 

2460 10174 8757 1349 2490 441 24 493 1550 72 38 1305 1882 .284 .377 .509 .886 134 4458


This is a statline comparison of Willie McCovey, Willie Stargell, and Fred McGriff respectively.  The only major difference is that Fred McGriff isn't named Willie.  Both McCovey and Stargell are in the HOF, so I don't see why McGriff would not be.  At one time, conventional wisdom would be that he had power, but not enough compared to McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, etc.  However, all of those guys have been exposed as steroid users.  McGriff put up HOF-ish numbers without any shadow of steroid use.  I think that the comparison to the guys who are already in + the lack of steroid scandal should get him in.  However, I would not be shocked if he does not make it.

While it's a good point with the shockingly close numbers, you can't compare players of different eras with straight stats.  McGriff played in a powerful era and he simply wasn't at the cream of the crop among his peers imo.  The OPS+ is telling about the eras...

EDF's point, I think, is that the era was steroid-plagued (the reason, at least in part, for inflated numbers), yet McGriff hasn't been under serious scrutiny for this.  His numbers are clean (or at least seen to be), and that should compensate for the fact that he was just very good (not spectacular) for his era.

But it's not the "baseball hall for very good players who didn't get caught using steroids with lesser stats than their peers" now is it? 

I just don't think McGriff was an elite player and shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame

[fathedX]

not gonna rehash this argument....but HERE GOES!

[Nacho]

   G    PA     AB    R     H    2B 3B  HR    RBI  SB CS   BB    SO   BA   OBP SLG  OPS OPS+ TB 


2588 9686 8197 1229 2211 353 46 521 1555 26 22 1345 1550 .270 .374 .515 .889 147 4219

2360 9026 7927 1195 2232 423 55 475 1540 17 16  937  1936 .282 .360 .529 .889 147 4190 

2460 10174 8757 1349 2490 441 24 493 1550 72 38 1305 1882 .284 .377 .509 .886 134 4458


This is a statline comparison of Willie McCovey, Willie Stargell, and Fred McGriff respectively.  The only major difference is that Fred McGriff isn't named Willie.  Both McCovey and Stargell are in the HOF, so I don't see why McGriff would not be.  At one time, conventional wisdom would be that he had power, but not enough compared to McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, etc.  However, all of those guys have been exposed as steroid users.  McGriff put up HOF-ish numbers without any shadow of steroid use.  I think that the comparison to the guys who are already in + the lack of steroid scandal should get him in.  However, I would not be shocked if he does not make it.

While it's a good point with the shockingly close numbers, you can't compare players of different eras with straight stats.  McGriff played in a powerful era and he simply wasn't at the cream of the crop among his peers imo.  The OPS+ is telling about the eras...

EDF's point, I think, is that the era was steroid-plagued (the reason, at least in part, for inflated numbers), yet McGriff hasn't been under serious scrutiny for this.  His numbers are clean (or at least seen to be), and that should compensate for the fact that he was just very good (not spectacular) for his era.

But it's not the "baseball hall for very good players who didn't get caught using steroids with lesser stats than their peers" now is it? 

I just don't think McGriff was an elite player and shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame

I don't really have an opinion, but I think the argument that he put up HoF numbers in an era in which lots of people put up similar HoF numbers because of steroid use--thus artificially inflating standards--is a valid one.  His numbers compare quite well to Stargell and McCovey.  The problem is that McGriff was overshadowed by people putting up even better numbers with the help of steroids, making McGriff seem not-so-elite.

[Gantry]

Running in circles, I'm letting this one go.  I would say that if there was a HOF for baseball instructional videos, McGriff gets in first ballot. 

[Nacho]

Running in circles, I'm letting this one go.  I would say that if there was a HOF for baseball instructional videos, McGriff gets in first ballot. 

I disagree.  I think he'd be giving the opening speech for Tom Emansky.  And that speech would be great.

[ultimate7]

Running in circles, I'm letting this one go.  I would say that if there was a HOF for baseball instructional videos, McGriff gets in first ballot.  

[BeefMaster]

EDF's point, I think, is that the era was steroid-plagued (the reason, at least in part, for inflated numbers), yet McGriff hasn't been under serious scrutiny for this.  His numbers are clean (or at least seen to be), and that should compensate for the fact that he was just very good (not spectacular) for his era.

How do you decide who was clean?  "This guy was skinny enough; let's let him into the Hall."  Yeah, there are some guys who we know used, but given some estimates of usage, there are a ton of guys who may have used, and it seems almost foolish to rule many folks out.

Then again, I'm in the "let 'em all in" camp, on the grounds that Gaylord Perry is in, everyone since about 1960 used greenies, and I would be shocked if Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth would have eschewed steroids had they been available then.

[Gantry]

If you put steroids in a sandwich, Babe Ruth would have eaten it

[edfan]

  G    PA     AB    R     H    2B 3B  HR    RBI  SB CS   BB    SO   BA   OBP SLG  OPS OPS+ TB  


2588 9686 8197 1229 2211 353 46 521 1555 26 22 1345 1550 .270 .374 .515 .889 147 4219

2360 9026 7927 1195 2232 423 55 475 1540 17 16  937  1936 .282 .360 .529 .889 147 4190  

2460 10174 8757 1349 2490 441 24 493 1550 72 38 1305 1882 .284 .377 .509 .886 134 4458


This is a statline comparison of Willie McCovey, Willie Stargell, and Fred McGriff respectively.  The only major difference is that Fred McGriff isn't named Willie.  Both McCovey and Stargell are in the HOF, so I don't see why McGriff would not be.  At one time, conventional wisdom would be that he had power, but not enough compared to McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, etc.  However, all of those guys have been exposed as steroid users.  McGriff put up HOF-ish numbers without any shadow of steroid use.  I think that the comparison to the guys who are already in + the lack of steroid scandal should get him in.  However, I would not be shocked if he does not make it.

While it's a good point with the shockingly close numbers, you can't compare players of different eras with straight stats.  McGriff played in a powerful era and he simply wasn't at the cream of the crop among his peers imo.  The OPS+ is telling about the eras...

EDF's point, I think, is that the era was steroid-plagued (the reason, at least in part, for inflated numbers), yet McGriff hasn't been under serious scrutiny for this.  His numbers are clean (or at least seen to be), and that should compensate for the fact that he was just very good (not spectacular) for his era.

Right...

The guys most contemporary with McGriff and more homers than him are:

Barry Bonds - 762, steroids
Ken Griffey Jr. - 630 and counting...no steroids
Sammy Sosa - 609, steroids
Mark McGwire - 583, steroids
Rafael Palmeiro - 569, steroids
Jim Thome - 564 and counting...no steroids that I am aware of
Manny Ramirez - 542, steroids
Frank Thomas, 521 and counting
Gary Sheffield, 509 and counting, steroids

You can't really say that he was any less dominating than his peers because 2/3 of those guys are proven steroid users.  

In a similar way, Stargell and McCovey were contemporary to guys like Carl Yastrzemski, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Ernie Banks, Harmon Killebrew, and Reggie Jackson.  Nobody would argue that either of those guys were more dominant (or even as dominant) as any of the above, but that does not make them less viable as HOF candidates.  They were very solid players for a long time moreso than being dominant players in their era.  


And as far as how to determine who is clean...no idea.  However, it is pretty much proven that 6 of the 9 contemporary guys who have more homers than McGriff were users, so I would say that McGriff has HOF numbers unless he was proven to be on steroids.  His numbers are only mediocre if he was actually using.

[Shooty]

Good analysis.  I think the things that helped McCovey and Stargell is that they each won an MVP award (with Stargell being in the top 3 in voting 4 times).  McGriff never got in the top 3 in voting ever.  HOF fame voters like shit like that.  They like the 500 HRs and the MVP awards.  I would equate McGriff to Tommy John.  Nice career numbers but never the best at any time and never quite reaching the the 500 HR/300 win plateau. 

And quite fankly if its taking this long to get Blyleven in the HOF, I don't think McGriff has much of a chance.  But yeah, the steroid guys pretty much fucked it up for McGriff.

[edfan]

Good analysis.  I think the things that helped McCovey and Stargell is that they each won an MVP award (with Stargell being in the top 3 in voting 4 times).  McGriff never got in the top 3 in voting ever.  HOF fame voters like shit like that.  They like the 500 HRs and the MVP awards.  I would equate McGriff to Tommy John.  Nice career numbers but never the best at any time and never quite reaching the the 500 HR/300 win plateau. 

And quite fankly if its taking this long to get Blyleven in the HOF, I don't think McGriff has much of a chance.  But yeah, the steroid guys pretty much fucked it up for McGriff.

All my arguments for McGriff aside, I generally agree with your analysis.  He is just one of those guys that I always liked and hope that he will get in.  Jim Rice and Blyleven have been the others

[ryno]

McGriff played at least half of his career in a non-roid era -- 87-94 / 95.  I think 96 was when the really stupid stats started.

McGriff did everything voters want --- decent average, power, run producer, won a WS. . .. he just wasn't all that sexy and / or controversial.

[BeefMaster]

Stats aside, McGriff had one of the few really good nicknames of the last few decades.