HOF - Fred "Crime Dog" McGriff

[DaveW]

  snepp said:

  SpiritofVodkaDave said:

Yup. 12th highest WAR amongst all pitchers ever. (and 39th overall)

 

Wow, we agree on something, it feels like it's been months since that happened. Or maybe it's just the putridity of the season making it seem that way.

We agree on important issues. We disagree on the handling of a 28 year old AAA relief pitcher.

[jm3319]

  SpiritofVodkaDave said:

First off, how can we be so sure McGriff wasn't on the juice? Between 95 and 98 (his 31-35 year old seasons) his OPS was .830.

 

Then he suddenly puts up a .957 OPS in his age 35 season and a .930 in his age 37 season?

 

Either way, he is a borderline at best case and he played in the steroid era, no hall for him. Also it seems like there were a ton of better 1st baseman that were around during his career as well.

 

That's one of the great tragedies of the steroid era. A guy gets older, and has a few better seasons that are above his average (which can statistically happen without steroids) yet people assume it's because he was cheating. Not everyone's career is a linear progression towards a peak then a linear regression towards retirement.

 

I realize that wasn't explained well. I'm saying not everyone goes 20,22,24,26,30,35,40,37,33,29,25,20 homers in their career. it's perfectly normal and understandable to have some statistical variation over the course of 10-20 years of a career where someone drops a 40 or upper 30 among some upper 20 seasons. You have to factor in things like health, or just dumb luck. The difference between a homer and a flyout can be as simple as the ballpark, the direction of the wind, etc.

 

In short, seeing a few good seasons in a person's mid 30's is sadly automatically linked to steroids now.

[greengoblinrulz]

on steroids with 'Crime Dawg'....fact that he maintained such a high level during his mid 30s, in the middle of the steroid era, when players of the decade before started fading fast in early/mid 30s makes me unsure. Roids isnt about size/bulk but about strength/recovery many times.

 

Duke Snider took 10 years to make the Hall....definately not great, by defination of his voting media peers.

Drysdale, was the Blyleven of his era...also makin it in his 10th year. 209wins & 6.5K/9 arent mindblowing great....just very good IMO

 

Vizquel is a guy I would like to see get in but not on his offensive numbers, which are extremely solid, but as the elite defensive shortstop of his era. I think Alan Trammel is also a guy who is getting shortchanged as a SS. No problem with Larkin, but he made it quicker than I thought.....12time All Star, 9time Silver Slugger, 2 gold gloves, won a World Series and an MVP----pretty solid if not great.

[Brock Beauchamp]

  TK10 said:

I agree the Hall of Very Good goes way back, but I think it's getting worse. Barry Larkin? I'm not so sure.

 

Barry Larkin had a career WAR ~40% higher than Puckett. If you think Kirby should be in the Hall, it's hard to make an argument to keep Barry out.

[DaveW]

  jm3319 said:

  SpiritofVodkaDave said:

First off, how can we be so sure McGriff wasn't on the juice? Between 95 and 98 (his 31-35 year old seasons) his OPS was .830.

 

Then he suddenly puts up a .957 OPS in his age 35 season and a .930 in his age 37 season?

 

Either way, he is a borderline at best case and he played in the steroid era, no hall for him. Also it seems like there were a ton of better 1st baseman that were around during his career as well.

 

That's one of the great tragedies of the steroid era. A guy gets older, and has a few better seasons that are above his average (which can statistically happen without steroids) yet people assume it's because he was cheating. Not everyone's career is a linear progression towards a peak then a linear regression towards retirement.

 

I realize that wasn't explained well. I'm saying not everyone goes 20,22,24,26,30,35,40,37,33,29,25,20 homers in their career. it's perfectly normal and understandable to have some statistical variation over the course of 10-20 years of a career where someone drops a 40 or upper 30 among some upper 20 seasons. You have to factor in things like health, or just dumb luck. The difference between a homer and a flyout can be as simple as the ballpark, the direction of the wind, etc.

 

In short, seeing a few good seasons in a person's mid 30's is sadly automatically linked to steroids now.

 

I'm of the opinion that anywhere between 50%-60% of the players were juicing during any of those "times"

 

I think its ridiculous personally to keep Bonds out of the hall of fame, roids or not he is one of the best 5 hitters of all time. Ditto with Clemens, though both are dicks, but being a dick shouldn't keep you out of the hall of fame (just ask Ty Cobb)

[Bark's Lounge]

  SpiritofVodkaDave said:

First off, how can we be so sure McGriff wasn't on the juice? Between 95 and 98 (his 31-35 year old seasons) his OPS was .830.

 

Then he suddenly puts up a .957 OPS in his age 35 season and a .930 in his age 37 season?

 

Either way, he is a borderline at best case and he played in the steroid era, no hall for him. Also it seems like there were a ton of better 1st baseman that were around during his career as well.

 

The Ghost of Vodka Dave has become a company man now. You are now rendered useless to your cohorts. McGriff is deserving and I'd like you to name comparable 1B from the era that are HOF worthy? Steroids??? Please.

[greengoblinrulz]

popular arguement that Bonds was a HOFer when he started juicing in 98 already (400HR/SBs). I agree with it. He got caught up in it but everyone pretty much agrees he didnt use till then.

McGuire & Sosa were pretty much HR hitters or bust.....wouldnt go with em anyways.

Wouldnt even think of Clemens till Maddux/Glavine/Morris make it.

Many people assume Piazza was a user (myself included...retired before testing), he's eligible this yr with Schilling (not till Morris for me) & Biggio (huge fan....over Bagwell who used IMO)

Larry Walker was a sensational hitter but he's not hurt by steroids but by playing a huge block of time in Coors Field & he's at 22% after 3yrs.

[DaveW]

  Bark said:

  SpiritofVodkaDave said:

First off' date=' how can we be so sure McGriff wasn't on the juice? Between 95 and 98 (his 31-35 year old seasons) his OPS was .830.

 

Then he suddenly puts up a .957 OPS in his age 35 season and a .930 in his age 37 season?

 

Either way, he is a borderline at best case and he played in the steroid era, no hall for him. Also it seems like there were a ton of better 1st baseman that were around during his career as well.[/quote']

 

The Ghost of Vodka Dave has become a company man now. You are now rendered useless to your cohorts. McGriff is deserving and I'd like you to name comparable 1B from the era that are HOF worthy? Steroids??? Please.

Kab already did.

 

Again, why is it such a known fact that he didn't do roids? IMO everyone not named Denny Hocking or Pat Meares in that era shouldn't be assumed to be a non user.

[DaveW]

  greengoblinrulz said:

popular arguement that Bonds was a HOFer when he started juicing in 98 already (400HR/SBs). I agree with it. He got caught up in it but everyone pretty much agrees he didnt use till then.

McGuire & Sosa were pretty much HR hitters or bust.....wouldnt go with em anyways.

Wouldnt even think of Clemens till Maddux/Glavine/Morris make it.

Many people assume Piazza was a user (myself included...retired before testing), he's eligible this yr with Schilling (not till Morris for me) & Biggio (huge fan....over Bagwell who used IMO)

Larry Walker was a sensational hitter but he's not hurt by steroids but by playing a huge block of time in Coors Field & he's at 22% after 3yrs.

Maddux and Glavine will easily make it.

 

Not sure why you are throwing Jack Morris into the mix, Morris is nowhere near HOF caliber IMO. Was he a great "big game pitcher?" yes. But he has a career 39.3 WAR (145th overall amongst all pitchers) and he had a 105 ERA+

 

He was a solid #2, but solid #2's don't go into the hall of fame.

 

Also the thought that Bagwell definately used is backed by zero evidence whatsoever, his name never came up in any reports, no?

 

I'd put Piazza in the hall no doubt, dude is the best hitting catcher of all time (even those his defense was bad, he still stuck at the position)

[strumdatjag]

It's alot like Blyleven. It depends on who is on the ballot and how close Fred is to dropping off of it. Very good numbers, and a very good player who deserves to get in after a while. He never was a first ballot type guy.

[Bark's Lounge]

  SpiritofVodkaDave said:

  Bark said:

  SpiritofVodkaDave said:

First off' date=' how can we be so sure McGriff wasn't on the juice? Between 95 and 98 (his 31-35 year old seasons) his OPS was .830.

 

Then he suddenly puts up a .957 OPS in his age 35 season and a .930 in his age 37 season?

 

Either way, he is a borderline at best case and he played in the steroid era, no hall for him. Also it seems like there were a ton of better 1st baseman that were around during his career as well.[/quote']

 

The Ghost of Vodka Dave has become a company man now. You are now rendered useless to your cohorts. McGriff is deserving and I'd like you to name comparable 1B from the era that are HOF worthy? Steroids??? Please.

Kab already did.

 

Again, why is it such a known fact that he didn't do roids? IMO everyone not named Denny Hocking or Pat Meares in that era shouldn't be assumed to be a non user.

 

You know what, I am sick of this argument, McGriff's physical appearance at his opening, looked the same as his closing. I'll role my dice with that. F' the naysayers!

[DaveW]

  strumdatjag said:

It's alot like Blyleven. It depends on who is on the ballot and how close Fred is to dropping off of it. Very good numbers, and a very good player who deserves to get in after a while. He never was a first ballot type guy.

 

48.2 career WAR (169th overall)

 

It's nothing like Bert IMO.

[Bark's Lounge]

  SpiritofVodkaDave said:

  strumdatjag said:

It's alot like Blyleven. It depends on who is on the ballot and how close Fred is to dropping off of it. Very good numbers, and a very good player who deserves to get in after a while. He never was a first ballot type guy.

 

48.2 career WAR (169th overall)

 

It's nothing like Bert IMO.

 

A word of advice - don't sell your soul the to bell whistle of sabremetrics - the game means way more than that.

[greengoblinrulz]

  SpiritofVodkaDave said:

  greengoblinrulz said:

popular arguement that Bonds was a HOFer when he started juicing in 98 already (400HR/SBs). I agree with it. He got caught up in it but everyone pretty much agrees he didnt use till then.

McGuire & Sosa were pretty much HR hitters or bust.....wouldnt go with em anyways.

Wouldnt even think of Clemens till Maddux/Glavine/Morris make it.

Many people assume Piazza was a user (myself included...retired before testing), he's eligible this yr with Schilling (not till Morris for me) & Biggio (huge fan....over Bagwell who used IMO)

Larry Walker was a sensational hitter but he's not hurt by steroids but by playing a huge block of time in Coors Field & he's at 22% after 3yrs.

Maddux and Glavine will easily make it.

 

Not sure why you are throwing Jack Morris into the mix, Morris is nowhere near HOF caliber IMO. Was he a great "big game pitcher?" yes. But he has a career 39.3 WAR (145th overall amongst all pitchers) and he had a 105 ERA+

 

He was a solid #2, but solid #2's don't go into the hall of fame.

 

Also the thought that Bagwell definately used is backed by zero evidence whatsoever, his name never came up in any reports, no?

 

I'd put Piazza in the hall no doubt, dude is the best hitting catcher of all time (even those his defense was bad, he still stuck at the position)

I have no problem with WAR as a stat...none. But I quoted Dave Parker's WAR as a -0.1 in 86 when he was 5th in MVP w/31HR 116RBI....that means he's less than a replacement player....dont think so. He was -1.5 the next yr with 26hr 97rbi......WAR just needs to be used in context.

 

Morris was the team ACE on 3 different World Series Champions....not a #2 winning a total of 58gms in those 3yrs.

Have no problem using his ERA against him (even in the DH AL) & thats why he's had to wait, but he will get voted in this year as the best pitcher of his middle 14yr era (79/92) when he was the only guy with over 190wins (233) & pitched 500 more innings than anyone during this period (reason for higher ERA?) while finishing 2nd in Ks, 3rd in WAR @ 51.8 (behind Ryan/Clemens). He was the pitcher of his era & that included Nolan Ryan

[DaveW]

  Bark said:

  SpiritofVodkaDave said:

  strumdatjag said:

It's alot like Blyleven. It depends on who is on the ballot and how close Fred is to dropping off of it. Very good numbers' date=' and a very good player who deserves to get in after a while. He never was a first ballot type guy.[/quote']

 

48.2 career WAR (169th overall)

 

It's nothing like Bert IMO.

 

A word of advice - don't sell your soul the to bell whistle of sabremetrics - the game means way more than that.

 

I realize that, but my eyes watching/following McGriff tell me he wasn't a hall of fame player, his basic stats tell me the same, then when we include WAR etc it becomes even more clear!

 

I'm not saying he wasn't good, hes just not a hall of famer.

[DaveW]

  greengoblinrulz said:

  SpiritofVodkaDave said:

  greengoblinrulz said:

popular arguement that Bonds was a HOFer when he started juicing in 98 already (400HR/SBs). I agree with it. He got caught up in it but everyone pretty much agrees he didnt use till then.

McGuire & Sosa were pretty much HR hitters or bust.....wouldnt go with em anyways.

Wouldnt even think of Clemens till Maddux/Glavine/Morris make it.

Many people assume Piazza was a user (myself included...retired before testing), he's eligible this yr with Schilling (not till Morris for me) & Biggio (huge fan....over Bagwell who used IMO)

Larry Walker was a sensational hitter but he's not hurt by steroids but by playing a huge block of time in Coors Field & he's at 22% after 3yrs.

Maddux and Glavine will easily make it.

 

Not sure why you are throwing Jack Morris into the mix, Morris is nowhere near HOF caliber IMO. Was he a great "big game pitcher?" yes. But he has a career 39.3 WAR (145th overall amongst all pitchers) and he had a 105 ERA+

 

He was a solid #2, but solid #2's don't go into the hall of fame.

 

Also the thought that Bagwell definately used is backed by zero evidence whatsoever, his name never came up in any reports, no?

 

I'd put Piazza in the hall no doubt, dude is the best hitting catcher of all time (even those his defense was bad, he still stuck at the position)

I have no problem with WAR as a stat...none. But I quoted Dave Parker's WAR as a -0.1 in 86 when he was 5th in MVP w/31HR 116RBI....that means he's less than a replacement player....dont think so. He was -1.5 the next yr with 26hr 97rbi......WAR just needs to be used in context.

 

Morris was the team ACE on 3 different World Series Champions....not a #2 winning a total of 58gms in those 3yrs.

Have no problem using his ERA against him (even in the DH AL) & thats why he's had to wait, but he will get voted in this year as the best pitcher of his middle 14yr era (79/92) when he was the only guy with over 190wins (233) & pitched 500 more innings than anyone during this period (reason for higher ERA?) while finishing 2nd in Ks, 3rd in WAR @ 51.8 (behind Ryan/Clemens). He was the pitcher of his era & that included Nolan Ryan

 

Morris was the third best pitcher on the Twins in 1991. Yes, he had a great world series, but he was the third best over the course of the season. Same thing in 1992 with Toronto. A couple clutch games in the world series does not make you a hall of famer.

[Bark's Lounge]

  SpiritofVodkaDave said:

  Bark said:

  SpiritofVodkaDave said:

  strumdatjag said:

It's alot like Blyleven. It depends on who is on the ballot and how close Fred is to dropping off of it. Very good numbers' date=' and a very good player who deserves to get in after a while. He never was a first ballot type guy.[/quote']

 

48.2 career WAR (169th overall)

 

It's nothing like Bert IMO.

 

A word of advice - don't sell your soul the to bell whistle of sabremetrics - the game means way more than that.

 

I realize that, but my eyes watching/following McGriff tell me he wasn't a hall of fame player, his basic stats tell me the same, then when we include WAR etc it becomes even more clear!

 

I'm not saying he wasn't good, hes just not a hall of famer.

 

Okay then. We just disagree and we'll leave it at that. Good night to you.

[greengoblinrulz]

  SpiritofVodkaDave said:

  greengoblinrulz said:

  SpiritofVodkaDave said:

  greengoblinrulz said:

popular arguement that Bonds was a HOFer when he started juicing in 98 already (400HR/SBs). I agree with it. He got caught up in it but everyone pretty much agrees he didnt use till then.

McGuire & Sosa were pretty much HR hitters or bust.....wouldnt go with em anyways.

Wouldnt even think of Clemens till Maddux/Glavine/Morris make it.

Many people assume Piazza was a user (myself included...retired before testing), he's eligible this yr with Schilling (not till Morris for me) & Biggio (huge fan....over Bagwell who used IMO)

Larry Walker was a sensational hitter but he's not hurt by steroids but by playing a huge block of time in Coors Field & he's at 22% after 3yrs.

Maddux and Glavine will easily make it.

 

Not sure why you are throwing Jack Morris into the mix, Morris is nowhere near HOF caliber IMO. Was he a great "big game pitcher?" yes. But he has a career 39.3 WAR (145th overall amongst all pitchers) and he had a 105 ERA+

 

He was a solid #2, but solid #2's don't go into the hall of fame.

 

Also the thought that Bagwell definately used is backed by zero evidence whatsoever, his name never came up in any reports, no?

 

I'd put Piazza in the hall no doubt, dude is the best hitting catcher of all time (even those his defense was bad, he still stuck at the position)

I have no problem with WAR as a stat...none. But I quoted Dave Parker's WAR as a -0.1 in 86 when he was 5th in MVP w/31HR 116RBI....that means he's less than a replacement player....dont think so. He was -1.5 the next yr with 26hr 97rbi......WAR just needs to be used in context.

 

Morris was the team ACE on 3 different World Series Champions....not a #2 winning a total of 58gms in those 3yrs.

Have no problem using his ERA against him (even in the DH AL) & thats why he's had to wait, but he will get voted in this year as the best pitcher of his middle 14yr era (79/92) when he was the only guy with over 190wins (233) & pitched 500 more innings than anyone during this period (reason for higher ERA?) while finishing 2nd in Ks, 3rd in WAR @ 51.8 (behind Ryan/Clemens). He was the pitcher of his era & that included Nolan Ryan

 

Morris was the third best pitcher on the Twins in 1991. Yes, he had a great world series, but he was the third best over the course of the season. Same thing in 1992 with Toronto. A couple clutch games in the world series does not make you a hall of famer.

Morris arguement depends on your value of wins. I absolutely believe they 'can' be overvalued depending on the situation. Morris, however, was a guy who pitched late into games.

In 92, he had 21wins but they also started Morris gm 1 of both ALCS & WS meaning Cito Gaston had him as their #1. 91, he wasnt the 3rd best pitcher...he was the most consistent as Erickson was first half, Tap was 2nd & Jack was solid all yr long. He pitched over 240 innings in both of those years.....ace style.

[one_eyed_jack]

Crime Dog is the classic borderline guy. I tend to err on the side of exclusivity, so I'd probably vote 'Nay' if I had a vote.

[biggentleben]

As far as McGriff's spikes, remember that he lived during an era of expansion. That really drastically affected numbers in the year or two following each expansion.

 

I was blessed to watch him play daily. I'd compare him to that era's Paul Konerko. You put Fred McGriff on the Yankees during his career and he's in. You put Paul Konerko on the Red Sox currently, and he's considered one of the best players in the entire game. As both should be.

 

The trouble with a lot of this is perspective. Jack Morris isn't close. He's simply not. He was not much better than other starters around him every year...until it came time for the playoffs. Curt Schilling is a similar pitcher as far as turning it up in the playoffs, but he was also one of the 2-5 best pitchers in the entire game for years.

 

The awards argument is a crap one, though. MVP voting is so moronic nearly 90% of the time. If I were to go back year by year, I'd wager that not one season in the last 30 was there a top 5 in both leagues that included the top 5 actual players that season. Using WAR is difficult because of the defensive statistics used and the weight against pitchers in general. It's hard to tell who belongs from generation to generation. We've all seen how poor the writers understand the modern game in their awards, and they've got more access to truly compare players than they ever have had before. Even in 1995, comparing Fred McGriff to Barry Larkin would have been very difficult for a writer from San Francisco who have seen all of a few games of each during the season in person and another handful on television during the year. Now any writer wanting to compare players can review baseball reference or watch every game via MLB.tv. Yet, even now, voters screw up ALL the time, so comparing how a guy did on award voting is about as useful as having them all drop trousers and getting out the ruler in determining who was a better player.

[DaveW]

  biggentleben said:

As far as McGriff's spikes, remember that he lived during an era of expansion. That really drastically affected numbers in the year or two following each expansion.

 

I was blessed to watch him play daily. I'd compare him to that era's Paul Konerko. You put Fred McGriff on the Yankees during his career and he's in. You put Paul Konerko on the Red Sox currently, and he's considered one of the best players in the entire game. As both should be.

 

The trouble with a lot of this is perspective. Jack Morris isn't close. He's simply not. He was not much better than other starters around him every year...until it came time for the playoffs. Curt Schilling is a similar pitcher as far as turning it up in the playoffs, but he was also one of the 2-5 best pitchers in the entire game for years.

 

The awards argument is a crap one, though. MVP voting is so moronic nearly 90% of the time. If I were to go back year by year, I'd wager that not one season in the last 30 was there a top 5 in both leagues that included the top 5 actual players that season. Using WAR is difficult because of the defensive statistics used and the weight against pitchers in general. It's hard to tell who belongs from generation to generation. We've all seen how poor the writers understand the modern game in their awards, and they've got more access to truly compare players than they ever have had before. Even in 1995, comparing Fred McGriff to Barry Larkin would have been very difficult for a writer from San Francisco who have seen all of a few games of each during the season in person and another handful on television during the year. Now any writer wanting to compare players can review baseball reference or watch every game via MLB.tv. Yet, even now, voters screw up ALL the time, so comparing how a guy did on award voting is about as useful as having them all drop trousers and getting out the ruler in determining who was a better player.

I am confused about your Konerko comment about him being "one of the best in the games"

Konerko basically equals Morneau at this point as there career numbers are very close.

[biggentleben]

  SpiritofVodkaDave said:

I am confused about your Konerko comment about him being "one of the best in the games"

Konerko basically equals Morneau at this point as there career numbers are very close.

 

You're assuming Morneau will even get to 14 full years in the majors, more than twice the number he has now. Konerko has played 140+ games all but two seasons since 1999 (and the two he missed were 122 and 137 games). Their rate stats are similar, but Konerko's been doing it every year since 1999, while Morneau had a good run for 4 years, and since, he's struggled to stay healthy.

[one_eyed_jack]

I'd say no on Dale Murphy. Great player, but not for enough of his career.

 

I know the HOF voters get flack for their insistence on longevity. But at the same time, you can't start inducting every guy who strung together a few great seasons. If that were enough, then there's a whole slew of guys who should be in, Tony O., Don Mattingly, Dave Parker, Albert Belle, Steve Garvey, etc.

 

But every time you loosen standards like that, it becomes less a Hall of Fame and more a Hall of Very Good.

[Pius Jefferson]

  greengoblinrulz said:

  SpiritofVodkaDave said:

  greengoblinrulz said:

  SpiritofVodkaDave said:

  greengoblinrulz said:

popular arguement that Bonds was a HOFer when he started juicing in 98 already (400HR/SBs). I agree with it. He got caught up in it but everyone pretty much agrees he didnt use till then.

McGuire & Sosa were pretty much HR hitters or bust.....wouldnt go with em anyways.

Wouldnt even think of Clemens till Maddux/Glavine/Morris make it.

Many people assume Piazza was a user (myself included...retired before testing), he's eligible this yr with Schilling (not till Morris for me) & Biggio (huge fan....over Bagwell who used IMO)

Larry Walker was a sensational hitter but he's not hurt by steroids but by playing a huge block of time in Coors Field & he's at 22% after 3yrs.

Maddux and Glavine will easily make it.

 

Not sure why you are throwing Jack Morris into the mix, Morris is nowhere near HOF caliber IMO. Was he a great "big game pitcher?" yes. But he has a career 39.3 WAR (145th overall amongst all pitchers) and he had a 105 ERA+

 

He was a solid #2, but solid #2's don't go into the hall of fame.

 

Also the thought that Bagwell definately used is backed by zero evidence whatsoever, his name never came up in any reports, no?

 

I'd put Piazza in the hall no doubt, dude is the best hitting catcher of all time (even those his defense was bad, he still stuck at the position)

I have no problem with WAR as a stat...none. But I quoted Dave Parker's WAR as a -0.1 in 86 when he was 5th in MVP w/31HR 116RBI....that means he's less than a replacement player....dont think so. He was -1.5 the next yr with 26hr 97rbi......WAR just needs to be used in context.

 

Morris was the team ACE on 3 different World Series Champions....not a #2 winning a total of 58gms in those 3yrs.

Have no problem using his ERA against him (even in the DH AL) & thats why he's had to wait, but he will get voted in this year as the best pitcher of his middle 14yr era (79/92) when he was the only guy with over 190wins (233) & pitched 500 more innings than anyone during this period (reason for higher ERA?) while finishing 2nd in Ks, 3rd in WAR @ 51.8 (behind Ryan/Clemens). He was the pitcher of his era & that included Nolan Ryan

 

Morris was the third best pitcher on the Twins in 1991. Yes, he had a great world series, but he was the third best over the course of the season. Same thing in 1992 with Toronto. A couple clutch games in the world series does not make you a hall of famer.

Morris arguement depends on your value of wins. I absolutely believe they 'can' be overvalued depending on the situation. Morris, however, was a guy who pitched late into games.

In 92, he had 21wins but they also started Morris gm 1 of both ALCS & WS meaning Cito Gaston had him as their #1. 91, he wasnt the 3rd best pitcher...he was the most consistent as Erickson was first half, Tap was 2nd & Jack was solid all yr long. He pitched over 240 innings in both of those years.....ace style.

 

He won 21 games in 1992 because he got great run support from the the Blue Jays. The playoff? Thankfully for the Blue Jays Guzman and Key stepped it up in the playoffs because Morris was dreadful.

 

Stieb>Morris

[YourHouseIsMyHouse]

The Hall of Fame is sort of a joke regardless. There are many players inducted who were not good let alone great and many players who should have been inducted who weren't. The voters on this really aren't the brightest bulbs. That said, neither Morris or McGriff are HOF worthy.

[TK10]

It's not hyperbolic to assume Konerko will end up with anywhere between 500-550 home runs, with 2,500 hits and 1,700 RBI. He'll get there because he's proven very effective as a DH. Throw in the fact he was essentially the captain on the team that won his franchise's first WS in 90 years and has led several others into the post season and you've likely got a first ballot HOFer. And it terms of the guys who vote, the fact Konerko is one of the most respected guys in the game, helps him. There's no reason, at this time, to think Morneau will ever match Konerko's resume.

[kab21]

What is this nonsense about not being sure about Barry Larkin? Is the HOF going to be a 1B/OF and a couple of pitchers from now on? Larkin was one of the best SS's in baseball for most of his career.

 

A guy like McGriff was very good but he was a 2nd tier player for most of his career because there are so many great 1Bman. Out of the guys currently on the ballot I would vote in Bagwell, Edgar and McGwire before McGriff, Delgado and Palmeiro (he's probably off by now). Thome and Thomas are definitely ahead of McGriff also when they are eligible. Konerko (and Ortiz) falls right into the McGriff and Delgado tier when he becomes eligible. I won't be upset if some of the fringe guys make it in but I doubt 2B/SS combined come close to matching the numbers of 1Bman in the hall from the 90's/00's. I'm all about Alan Trammell making it before the 2nd tier 1Bman.

[DaveW]

  kab21 said:

What is this nonsense about not being sure about Barry Larkin? Is the HOF going to be a 1B/OF and a couple of pitchers from now on? Larkin was one of the best SS's in baseball for most of his career.

 

A guy like McGriff was very good but he was a 2nd tier player for most of his career because there are so many great 1Bman. Out of the guys currently on the ballot I would vote in Bagwell, Edgar and McGwire before McGriff, Delgado and Palmeiro (he's probably off by now). Thome and Thomas are definitely ahead of McGriff also when they are eligible. Konerko (and Ortiz) falls right into the McGriff and Delgado tier when he becomes eligible. I won't be upset if some of the fringe guys make it in but I doubt 2B/SS combined come close to matching the numbers of 1Bman in the hall from the 90's/00's. I'm all about Alan Trammell making it before the 2nd tier 1Bman.

Exactly, Larkin IMO is on the short list of the top SS of all time.

 

I'm curious to see how many RP start making the hall of fame in the future, Rivera obviously is a lock but I wonder if other guys can sneak into the conversation as well.

 

I agree Kab, Edgar and Bagwell certainly belong in the hall over McGriff. And I actually think he is behind Delgado, and no way do I think Delgado deserves to get in.

[greengoblinrulz]

  biggentleben said:

As far as McGriff's spikes, remember that he lived during an era of expansion. That really drastically affected numbers in the year or two following each expansion.

 

I was blessed to watch him play daily. I'd compare him to that era's Paul Konerko. You put Fred McGriff on the Yankees during his career and he's in. You put Paul Konerko on the Red Sox currently, and he's considered one of the best players in the entire game. As both should be.

The trouble with a lot of this is perspective. Jack Morris isn't close. He's simply not. He was not much better than other starters around him every year...until it came time for the playoffs. Curt Schilling is a similar pitcher as far as turning it up in the playoffs, but he was also one of the 2-5 best pitchers in the entire game for years.

 

The awards argument is a crap one, though. MVP voting is so moronic nearly 90% of the time. If I were to go back year by year, I'd wager that not one season in the last 30 was there a top 5 in both leagues that included the top 5 actual players that season. Using WAR is difficult because of the defensive statistics used and the weight against pitchers in general. It's hard to tell who belongs from generation to generation. We've all seen how poor the writers understand the modern game in their awards, and they've got more access to truly compare players than they ever have had before. Even in 1995, comparing Fred McGriff to Barry Larkin would have been very difficult for a writer from San Francisco who have seen all of a few games of each during the season in person and another handful on television during the year. Now any writer wanting to compare players can review baseball reference or watch every game via MLB.tv. Yet, even now, voters screw up ALL the time, so comparing how a guy did on award voting is about as useful as having them all drop trousers and getting out the ruler in determining who was a better player.

 

Not disagreeing, but are we saying that Chicago isnt big market enough for a player to get the correct recognition??

[Brock Beauchamp]

  greengoblinrulz said:

  biggentleben said:

As far as McGriff's spikes, remember that he lived during an era of expansion. That really drastically affected numbers in the year or two following each expansion.

 

I was blessed to watch him play daily. I'd compare him to that era's Paul Konerko. You put Fred McGriff on the Yankees during his career and he's in. You put Paul Konerko on the Red Sox currently, and he's considered one of the best players in the entire game. As both should be.

The trouble with a lot of this is perspective. Jack Morris isn't close. He's simply not. He was not much better than other starters around him every year...until it came time for the playoffs. Curt Schilling is a similar pitcher as far as turning it up in the playoffs, but he was also one of the 2-5 best pitchers in the entire game for years.

 

The awards argument is a crap one, though. MVP voting is so moronic nearly 90% of the time. If I were to go back year by year, I'd wager that not one season in the last 30 was there a top 5 in both leagues that included the top 5 actual players that season. Using WAR is difficult because of the defensive statistics used and the weight against pitchers in general. It's hard to tell who belongs from generation to generation. We've all seen how poor the writers understand the modern game in their awards, and they've got more access to truly compare players than they ever have had before. Even in 1995, comparing Fred McGriff to Barry Larkin would have been very difficult for a writer from San Francisco who have seen all of a few games of each during the season in person and another handful on television during the year. Now any writer wanting to compare players can review baseball reference or watch every game via MLB.tv. Yet, even now, voters screw up ALL the time, so comparing how a guy did on award voting is about as useful as having them all drop trousers and getting out the ruler in determining who was a better player.

 

Not disagreeing, but are we saying that Chicago isnt big market enough for a player to get the correct recognition??

 

The White Sox, not really. Move Konerko to the Cubs and he has a much better shot at getting into the Hall.