Fred McGriff, and a Note on Numbers
OK. So Joe Posnanski (my favorite baseball writer) wrote an article on Luis Aparicio & Omar Vizquel. If you have not read it yet, take the time. It's among the best articles on the Hall of Fame I have ever read, and easily the best published this year. The point, I think, is NOT to argue against Omar Vizquel entering the Hall of Fame (although I do not believe Joe will vote for Omar), BUT a larger discussion on how numbers, and a narrative, matter in terms of a player earning induction. But I think Joe misses one point.
Joe is correct that we rely too heavily on a player's numbers for hall induction, but I wished he had made an additional comment on a player's 'numbers' and what they mean. If anything: numbers are the tools in which we tell the story of a player's Hall of Fame case. Take Jim Thome. Jim Thome was a prolific slugger with prodigious power and a keen eye at the plate. He was a rare combination of both epic slugging potential and a prodigious ability to reach base. How can I convince someone this is true? Well, Jim Thome hit 40 or more homeruns six times in his career; while he only led the league once he placed in the top 10 9 times, including seven times in the 5. His career total of 612 is 7th all time. Thome's .402 career on base percentage is good for 51st all time, and he walked the 7th most in baseball history. You see there? The numbers enhance the story, but are NOT the story in and of themselves.
Which brings us to Fred McGriff. Fred McGriff finished with similar numbers to Eddie Murray and many writers, most notably Tom Verducci, argue this means McGriff belongs in the Hall of Fame. Overall, this line of argument has not persuaded too many voters as of yet. This brings us to a question: how close is McGriff to the Hall?
The Skills
Fred McGriff was a great hitter. Overall, McGriff brought a modicum of offensive skills to the table. He hit for reasonable batting averages (.284 for his career), but never amazing ones (top 10 once: 8th in 1990). He got on base, and drew his walks, but not at an elite rate: his. 377 OB% is good, but he only cracked .400 once. Finally: he did hit for good power, particularly homeruns. McGriff twice led the league in homers (both times he hit 34), 7 times placed in the top 10, with 493 for his career. Overall: his 134 career OPS+ is good, but not amazing: tied for 120th all time. Sadly Fred McGriff brought little to the table otherwise. McGriff never won a Gold Glove, and rated below average in both the field and basepaths for his career.
The Career
McGriff began his career in Toronto, and essentially immediately began hitting. As a young man McGriff was a sensational hitter, who frequently ranked near the top of the league in terms of power. At 24 he hit 34 homeruns, and led the league with the same number at 25 (along with OPS and OPS+). He was then traded to San Diego as part of the deal for Roberto Alomar. McGriff continued his prowess in San Diego, leading the league again at age 27 with 35 homeruns. Overall as a young man in Toronto McGriff hit a great .281/.389/.532 OPS+ 151, with 228 homeruns.
After leaving San Diego McGriff bounced around. He signed as a free agent with Atlanta, and had his last great offensive season, batting over .300 for the first time, and again topping 30 homeruns. However, 1994 was the beginning of the offensive explosion witnessed under Bud Selig. While McGriff remained a good hitter in his 30s, he was not quite the force he was in his 20s: his 30 homerun power dropped to 20 homerun power, and his OPS+ dipped 30 points. While his two remaining 30+ homerun seasons in 1999 and 2001 look good on paper, neither was good enough for even top 10 in the league.
The Case
Fred McGriff's main case for enshrinement is being as good a hitter as Eddie Murray without the big counting stats. Their rate stats appear similar:
Murray: .287/.359/.476 OPS+ 129, 3,255 H, 560 2B, 504 HR, 1,917 RBI
McGriff: .284/.377/.509 OPS+ 134, 2,490 H, 441 2B, 493 HR, 1,550 RBI
You see? Nearly the spitting image: and the numbers in some ways suggest McGriff out performed Murray. His OBP is higher, as is his OPS+. However, it's partly a mirage. Murray accumulated over 2,500 more plate appearances than McGriff and his numbers include time from a lower scoring era than McGriff. If we consider their prime 9 years:
McGriff: .285/.386/.535 OPS+ 149, 289 HR
Murray: .300/.380/.509 OPS+ 146, 248 HR
Here the gap closes, and on a realistic level. And overall it's difficult to argue Murray was a significantly better offensive player than McGriff: he just did it LONGER than McGriff. While their peak WAR scores are quite similar: 39.0 for Murray, and 35.8 for McGriff; their career scores are not. Murray 68.3 WAR dwarfs McGriff's 52.4. Overall: while McGriff probably had a similar number of good seasons, Murray simply had more of them.
Murray was also a good defender: he contributed over 90 runs in the field than McGriff. He won Gold Gloves as a young man. Finally, Murray offers other intangibles McGriff does not. Murray won a World Series under Earl Weaver, and spent a majority of his career with one team. McGriff bounced around. To return to the narrative: Murray was simply a more consistent hitter for longer. Murray put up 12 seasons with an OPS+ of 130 or better, McGriff did that only 9 times.
The Prediction
The purpose of this post was to add an addendum to Posnanski's superior work, not to defame McGriff. However, I don't expect any movement for McGriff from the Hall of Fame. Morgan's letter may rock the boat a little, but on a crowded ballot with many superior players McGriff will remain in limbo.
Prediction: between 15-30% of the vote