Community

thehemogoblin: home again won the Throwdown.

thehemogoblin: home again

vs

Bigalke

Throwndowns: 111
Record: 82 - 23 - 6
Nimrod, OR
All Throwdowns
9
Votes
Throwndowns: 137
Record: 89 - 33 - 15
Eugene, OR
All Throwdowns
11
Votes

Throwdown Masters Tourney IV, Round II- Is the Crime Dog, Fred McGriff, a Hall of Famer?


Fred McGriff was a very good player, and a bad decision for the Padres to dump in the 1992 firesale, but he wasn't a Hall of Famer. Only a five-time All-Star, McGriff never hit more than 37 home runs in a single season and only led the league he was in (not the majors, just the AL or NL) twice in homers.. He only had three Silver Sluggers in his 17 full major league seasons. He only hit over .300 five times, only had an on-base percentage of .400 twice, and slugged .600 twice. 8 seasons of 100 RBI and never leading the league in that statistic are another reason why the Crime Dog, whilst a fantastic player, doesn't deserve a placard in Cooperstown.

Other statistics where he was not Hall of Fame caliber were his strikeouts (1882, 8th all time), the fact that he never led the league in slugging or extra base hits, and only led the league in intentional walks one time (showing how teams pitched around him). He's only 62nd all time in at bats per home run, and he didn't achieve any major career milestones, falling short of 500 home runs, even though he played until he was 40. He never finished higher than fourth in an MVP vote, showing he never had the distinguishing dominant streak.


You want to talk batting stats with Fred McGriff? Well then let's compare him to the Hall of Fame 162-game average to make these numbers fair:

McGriff: 577 AB, 89 R, 164 H, 29 2B, 2 3B, 32 HR, 102 RBI, 5 SB, 3 CS, 86 BB, 124 SO, .284 BA, .377 OBP, .509 SLG, 134 OPS

HOF: 601 AB, 101 R, 183 H, 31 2B, 9 3B, 15 HR, 93 RBI, 17 SB, 4 CS, 67 BB, 48 SO, .303 BA, .376 OBP, .462 SLG, 128 OPS

So in fewer average per-season at bats McGriff eclipses the Hall of Fame average in homers and RBIs, has comparable doubles totals, a higher OBP, SLG & OPS, and comparable hits-per-season... and he's NOT a POTENTIAL Hall of Famer?!

Because, after all, the throwdown statement is a truism and as such is not debatable -- Fred McGriff is not currently a Hall of Famer, as he is not eligible for voting until 2009. So we have to look at potential here. And based on all these hitting stats that you wish to deride, he comes out right around the Hall of Fame average or above.

He has a career .992 fielding percentage in 2239 games @ 1st base... he has strong comparable batting stats... his numbers fit quite neatly into the standards set for admission into the Hall of Fame...


You can't tell me that you're comparing Fred McGriff to dead-ball era second basemen. No way. You've got to compare him to his generational peers.

Take Mark McGwire and Eddie Murray, the two premier first basemen of the 80s and 90s.

Murray: 607 AB 87 R 174 H 30 2B 2 3B 27 HR 103 RBI 6 SB 2 CS 71 BB 81 SO .287 BA .359 OBP .476 SLG 129 OPS+

McGwire: 535 AB 101 R 141 H 22 2B 1 3B 50 HR 122 RBI 1 SB 1 CS 114 BB 138 SO .263 BA .394 OBP .588 SLG 162 OPS+

Murray takes 7 categories from McGriff while McGriff takes 6 from him, not to mention the fact that Murray had 3 Gold Gloves, was a switch hitter, and reached 3000 hits and 500 home runs.

McGwire takes 8 categories from McGriff while McGriff takes 6, not including the fact that McGwire twice hit for 65 or more home runs and is number one all time in at bats per home run and has a Gold Glove.

Compared to his two most applicable peers (based on position and era), Fred McGriff isn't as good, and he never had the dominant period that players should have. He never finished higher than fourth for MVP, never led the league in RBI, never led the league in slugging, has no Gold Glove awards, and only has one championship ring.


If Ray Schalk and Jesse Haines can get into the Hall of Fame, the standards are set to the point where Fred McGriff is a worthy candidate for consideration. And looking at your stats for Murray and McGwire, it becomes even more apparent that if these guys are worthy of consideration, then so too is Fred. Murray is a comparable, as you pointed out yourself by the stat-by-stat breakdown; McGwire's every number is wrapped in a cloud of suspicion...

As for fielding stats, McGriff also compares favorably to these contemporaries listed. McGriff's .992 lifetime fielding percentage at first base matches well with McGwire and Murray, who both sit on .993 lifetime fielding percentages. The Hall of Fame, as many of the players ensconced within can attest, is not merely for those who had one or two superstar seasons but also for the players who demonstrate consistency year after year. McGriff played 19 seasons in the majors, and remember... just as Fred never won an MVP, so too did neither McGwire nor Murray...

So you see, once the shock of the name wears off McGriff indeed IS a worthy candidate for inclusion in the Baseball Hall of Fame...


You and your stupid callbacks to stupid TDs for stupid tourneys that my friend had a stupid moment and forgot to send out for me...

Ray Schalk and Jesse Haines are Veteran's Committee selections from back when the Veteran's Committee was ran by the former GM of the St. Louis Cardinals.

When McGwire played, however, you have to consider this:

a) it WAS NOT banned

b) McGriff played through the exact same era so the same suspicion must also lie with him

As for the impact of dominant seasons, I present Bill James' work on this subject from the book "Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame?"

http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/excerpts/hall_of_fame.stm

This study showed that players that had big seasons but were more inconsistent won their teams up to 4% more pennants than those teams with less dynamic but more consistent players (and this was simulated over periods of 3000 years or more).

However you want to sugarcoat it, McGwire and Murray were better offensively and defensively, had more dynamic seasons, and had other defining qualities about them, which McGriff lacks. McGriff never got 3000 hits or 500 home runs, milestones that BBWAA members (HOF Voters) look at.


The crux of this argument, in the end, comes down to whether or not the BBWAA will take a McGriff candidacy into consideration. As I defined in my first argument (and was not refuted by my opponent), the topic as listed is a truism -- McGriff cannot possibly be in the Hall yet as he is not eligible. I set this to "Will he be considered?"

He may not get voted in, but he WILL be debated among the baseball writers as a CANDIDATE. Certainly dominant seasons play a role in defining a player... but consistency does have its place. Cal Ripken may not have won a lot but he sure was consistent, for instance.

Fred is 25th all-time in homers & 39th all-time in extra-base hits. His numbers are comparable if not favorable against the Hall of Fame average. He compares well against the peers of his era at his position, both in fielding and in batting. He may not have his 3000 hits or his 500 homers, and that ultimately may cost him an actual spot in the Hall, but it does not diminish the fact that he will most certainly be considered for inclusion with such numbers. As the throwdown was set in the opening arguments, Fred McGriff WILL be considered for Hall of Fame induction...

Comments (16)

Most Recent Comment Add Comment RSS

Good luck, Chief. We need to quit coordinating our TD schedules though.

Report Offensive Comment

Gawd, I read this and automatically thought of McGruff the crime dog. Was that your intention? lol

Report Offensive Comment

Nevermind - most likely eh?

Report Offensive Comment

Gawd, I read this and automatically thought of McGruff the crime dog. Was that your intention? lol

LoveItHateIt | 06/06/08, 02:48 AM

That was Chris Berman's intention. The name stuck.

Report Offensive Comment

I look at the title "Is the Crime Dog, Fred McGriff, a Hall of Famer?" and was leaning right until the last arguement when Bigalke said "He may not get voted in" ... sorry that swung it the other way... Good arguments on both sides.

Report Offensive Comment

Hemo makes a great point with the 1st sentence of his 2nd argument. You CANT compare McGriff to the whole HOF, as the game has changed. Gotta vote Hemo here, his argument stayed stronger throughout the TD

Report Offensive Comment

Alke, it doesn't say will he be considered, since technically anyone on the ballot is considered. The title says is he a Hall of Famer. He isn't, and he shouldn't ever be. By your logic, you could win this argument for anyone on the ballot. B.J. Surhoff is considered for the HOF, the BBWAA takes his candidacy into consideration. But he won't ever get in.

Report Offensive Comment

Alke, it doesn't say will he be considered, since technically anyone on the ballot is considered. The title says is he a Hall of Famer. He isn't, and he shouldn't ever be. By your logic, you could win this argument for anyone on the ballot. B.J. Surhoff is considered for the HOF, the BBWAA takes his candidacy into consideration. But he won't ever get in.
Nomarfan: TD Vigilante | 06/06/08, 01:36 PM

Nomarfan... because the throwdown was a truism ("Is the Crime Dog, Fred McGriff, a Hall of Famer?" No... he is not... he is not even yet eligible for another year), the opposition has the right in a debate to set the parameters. Hemo declined to refute this throughout the argumentation, so that definition should stand were one to take this seriously and judge based on principled debate criteria.

Further, what I said is that McGriff WILL get on that ballot. Whether or not he is ever voted is inconsequential... far too many great players in many leagues never get into their sport's Hall of Fame. "The title says is he a Hall of Famer." This is not a debatable statement... as I continue to pounce upon, it is impossible by the rules of the BBWAA and the Hall for McGriff to be a Hall of Famer until five years after his 2004 retirement.

Not every candidate gets on the ballot. After all, the BBWAA won't be taking a guy like, say, Ron Oester into consideration any time soon. McGriff, on the other hand, WILL get consideration... and as the protocol of debate states, that meets the burden of proof placed on my side since that definitional shift of the burden of proof from a truism to a debatable statement was never refuted or counter-argued...

Report Offensive Comment

Far too FEW people treat this as a debate forum, disrespecting the entire spirit of a debate in the process... and far too MANY treat throwdowns as nothing more than a popularity contest... but I digress.

Report Offensive Comment

... and I mean not any disrespect to my formidable opponent... hemo, for one, always takes both his debating and his voting seriously...

Report Offensive Comment

"Nomarfan... because the throwdown was a truism ("Is the Crime Dog, Fred McGriff, a Hall of Famer?" No... he is not... he is not even yet eligible for another year), the opposition has the right in a debate to set the parameters."


That doesn't even make sense to me. I'm sorry.

Report Offensive Comment

Stick to the topic. Don't put your spin on it and create loopholes for yourself.

Report Offensive Comment

He gets in

------------------------------------------------------------------------------->

Report Offensive Comment

That doesn't even make sense to me. I'm sorry.
chrono8008 | 06/06/08, 03:49 PM

Stick to the topic. Don't put your spin on it and create loopholes for yourself.
chrono8008 | 06/06/08, 03:50 PM

Chrono... this is NOT a loophole. hemo could easily have stated that McGriff is not in the Hall of Fame so by default he should win. I called the fallacy of this, and now you want to say this is spin and loopholes? Debating allows for the parameters to be defined. I did, hemo never countered... and now you are gong to accuse me of "creating loopholes"? What's with the personal attacks here from people OTHER than my opponent?

Report Offensive Comment

Here are the parameters you defined in your first argument:

"Fred McGriff is not currently a Hall of Famer, as he is not eligible for voting until 2009. So we have to look at potential here."

By "potential," I (and probably hemo) assume that you mean, when eligible after 5 years since his career's end, he will get in. The throwdown title says Hall of Famer, not Hall of Fame candidate.

Second argument:

"McGriff indeed IS a worthy candidate for inclusion in the Baseball Hall of Fame..."

It's implied here that you mean he will get into the HOF. You're still following the throwdown's topic. There is nothing for hemo to counter, because you've sounded so far like you're talking about McGriff getting in.

Third argument:

"I set this to 'Will he be considered?'"

You most certainly did not. First of all, don't put it in quotations when you're not taking a direct quote. Secondly, you never made it clear that you were talking about mere "consideration" rather than actually being voted in. And, with it being your third argument, hemo has no chance to respond. Maybe he could have left a comment, but I'd say a majority of voters don't read the comments (sometimes not even the arguments).

Look at djroxalot -- his comment implies that he understood the throwdown to be about inclusion in the Hall of Fame, not a place on the ballot. You never made it clear what you were arguing about until the final argument, when hemo didn't have a chance to respond.

But what it comes down to is semantics. Yes, the title says "Is the Crime Dog, Fred McGriff, a Hall of Famer?" Technically, no, because he hasn't been voted in. But we all know the terminology of "is he/she a Hall of Famer?" is used in everyday sports to mean "is he/she worthy of being in the Hall of Fame?" I'm not saying I've never used a technicality in semantics as a debating technique, but changing it into "worthy of being on the Hall of Fame ballot?" and on the last argument, no less, is simply unfair.

That's my take on it. You're probably going to win this throwdown anyway, because of that HOF average comparison (which, in my opinion, is totally bogus), but whatever.

Report Offensive Comment
 

I have to agree with chrono here. Bigalke, I love you to death, but you often times use these type of TD tactics. My point here is that Fred Mcgriff in no way looks like a likely candidate for the HOF, but in your true TD Masters way, you have him inducted already. I respect your argument but I don't agree with it. I'm going to have to vote for Hemo here.

Report Offensive Comment

Add a comment

Remember to keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed. More Guidelines


or cancel

SI.com Photos

Faces at the U.S. Open
Back in Time: September 5
Former Athletes Turned Politicians
Visit SI.com for more photo galleries

SI.com Top 10 Headlines

Visit SI.com for more stories