PDA

View Full Version : HOF - Fred "Crime Dog" McGriff



Bark's Lounge
09-08-2012, 04:45 PM
Since the Crime Dog retired from baseball, all I have heard from professional commentators is that Fred McGriff will not get inducted to the Hall of Fame.

At first I somewhat agreed with them, but after a while it was hard to not be impressed by 493 HR's, almost 2,500 hits, 1,500+ RBI's, and a lifetime OPS of .886.

Even though McGriff Played in the "Steroids Era", his body never changed, he remained a lanky, tall player through the duration of his career. I feel confident in saying Crime Dog was not a cheat.

McGriff never won a Gold Glove, but I do remember him being a very good defensive first baseman and he was a key contributor to the highly successful ATL Braves of the mid-90's. (1995 WS Championship included)

I am now of sound mind that Fred "Crime Dog" McGriff should be a member of the Hall of Fame.

How about you?

Pius Jefferson
09-08-2012, 04:50 PM
He gets one of my fake HOF votes. Kind of b.s. to think seven home runs might keep him out of the HOF.

gunnarthor
09-08-2012, 05:45 PM
Yeah, I think if you're going to punish guys like McGwire, Sosa etc for roiding up then the voters should also reward a guy like McGriff who (everyone believes) didn't roid up.

Brock Beauchamp
09-08-2012, 05:58 PM
Yeah, I think if you're going to punish guys like McGwire, Sosa etc for roiding up then the voters should also reward a guy like McGriff who (everyone believes) didn't roid up.

Hes a borderline candidate but like you said, if we're going to punish the juicers, you also have to reward the guys who weren't linked to steroids.

greengoblinrulz
09-08-2012, 06:14 PM
I dont think "Crime Dog" is a HOFer myself, but wouldnt argue a bit if he made it. Also liked him, and do think he gets lost in the steroid era.

Bark's Lounge
09-08-2012, 06:36 PM
If I was an HOF voter, I would ignore Bonds, McGwire, Palmeiro, and Sosa's offensive output when analyzing and coming to a conclusion on where Crime Dog stood as a candidate for the HOF. I am of the belief that McGriff is not a first or second ballot HOFer, but should get in before the conclusion of his eligibility, whether that be 3 years or 15 years. The sad thing to me is that McGriff is entering his 3rd year on the ballot and his percentage of votes dropped from 20.5% to 17.9% between his 1st and 2nd years of eligibility. Damn, those percentages were not good to begin with. I hope the HOF voters come around on the McGriff equation.

greengoblinrulz
09-08-2012, 06:42 PM
Still dont understand how/why a voter can put someone on the ballot one year, but not the next. Ive always thought that once a player makes a voters ballot, they are there till inducted or untill taken off the ballot. How does a retired player get worse.
Those type of voters should lose their ballot

Seth Stohs
09-08-2012, 06:48 PM
I think he's definitely a HOF guy.

greengoblinrulz
09-08-2012, 06:57 PM
I think whats hurt him is during his career, he was never the best player during his era (only one top 5 finish in MVP..4th in 93).
He was just incredibly consistent (never more than 37HR--7 straight tho & 10 total over 30....107rbi his high--8yrs over 100) and performed in the playoffs (.917OPS in 50gms).
I also think he fell off the radar somewhat to fans/media by signing & basically finishing his career w/Tampa (other noncontenders)
think he'll be the type who gets in 6/7 yrs in when his numbers stand out more from the steroid guys....who definately hurt him
Im a lil bit of a HOF snob cause I still think Dale Murphy deserves to be in over Jim Rice/Gary Carter types. Best player in game (opinion) for an 8 yr stretch in 80s....2 time MVP, 7 time All Star, 5 time gold glove

TK10
09-08-2012, 07:28 PM
If Andre Dawson's in the Hall of Fame, why not Fred McGriff?

Bark's Lounge
09-08-2012, 07:37 PM
If Andre Dawson's in the Hall of Fame, why not Fred McGriff?

2 different kinds of animals. I think Dawson is better (MVP, more of an impact player), but Crime Dog should be in no buts about it. McGriff was sneaky and steady in putting up his career statistics, but was great none the less!

snepp
09-08-2012, 07:38 PM
If Andre Dawson's in the Hall of Fame, why not Fred McGriff?

I don't like using borderline (or worse) players in the hall as reasoning to let other borderline candidates in. You'll end up in a never ending spiral of lowering standards.


That said, I wouldn't object to his election.

snepp
09-08-2012, 07:40 PM
Im a lil bit of a HOF snob cause I still think Dale Murphy deserves to be in over Jim Rice/Gary Carter types.

Rice was a putrid addition that put a big dent in the selection standards.

greengoblinrulz
09-08-2012, 07:45 PM
The couple threads on HOFers had me go back & look at some numbers & they are astounding.
Joe Carter didnt get the votes (3.8%) to last past a year.
Guys like Dave Parker are greatly forgotten how dominant they were (his WAR in 86/87 was a combined -1.6 when he had 57HR 213RBI...how's that happen??) but he's lasted the maximum 15yrs on ballot in mid teens for votes.
Steve Garvey's first year was 41.6% but his last, 15yrs later, were 21.1%....he only had about 7 solid yrs, ala Tony Oliva

Bark's Lounge
09-08-2012, 07:50 PM
I am of the thought that Dave Parker should be in the HOF. I have read in some places that he was involved with cocaine in the late 70's, early 80's and that had lead to his non-inclusion. If that is the case - shame on the voters. The Cobra was great!

Bark's Lounge
09-08-2012, 08:01 PM
I think whats hurt him is during his career, he was never the best player during his era (only one top 5 finish in MVP..4th in 93).
He was just incredibly consistent (never more than 37HR--7 straight tho & 10 total over 30....107rbi his high--8yrs over 100) and performed in the playoffs (.917OPS in 50gms).
I also think he fell off the radar somewhat to fans/media by signing & basically finishing his career w/Tampa (other noncontenders)
think he'll be the type who gets in 6/7 yrs in when his numbers stand out more from the steroid guys....who definately hurt him
Im a lil bit of a HOF snob cause I still think Dale Murphy deserves to be in over Jim Rice/Gary Carter types. Best player in game (opinion) for an 8 yr stretch in 80s....2 time MVP, 7 time All Star, 5 time gold glove

Dale Murphy was indeed prime time. His last 5-6 years were awful and I think that left an impression. Sometimes your last impression is the one people remember... the voters most importantly. If he gets in someday, I would not be opposed.

Thrylos
09-08-2012, 08:01 PM
Hes a borderline candidate but like you said, if we're going to punish the juicers, you also have to reward the guys who weren't linked to steroids.

Here is the thing about that era (and the previous one btw, 'cause rhoids were around then too) : Nobody knows whether anyone used unless someone was caught.

My personal view about this thing (steroids) has changed so many times. Mainly because the caught/not-caught thing is so random (and hey is Braun "caught"? In my mind the way he got out of it was the way OJ got out of another it...)

Thrylos
09-08-2012, 08:05 PM
I am of the thought that Dave Parker should be in the HOF. I have read in some places that he was involved with cocaine in the late 70's, early 80's and that had lead to his non-inclusion. If that is the case - shame on the voters. The Cobra was great!

yeah
the coke scandal in the 80s was pretty big. Lots of people involved including Keith Hernandez and our beloved HOFer Paul Molitor. (http://seattletimes.com/html/sports/2001987767_molitor25.html)

Bark's Lounge
09-08-2012, 08:16 PM
I am of the thought that Dave Parker should be in the HOF. I have read in some places that he was involved with cocaine in the late 70's, early 80's and that had lead to his non-inclusion. If that is the case - shame on the voters. The Cobra was great!

yeah
the coke scandal in the 80s was pretty big. Lots of people involved including Keith Hernandez and our beloved HOFer Paul Molitor. (http://seattletimes.com/html/sports/2001987767_molitor25.html)

Hey Thrylos. I do not know much about this subject other than what I typed (other than I knew Molitor was a user). What is the story on the cocaine thing?

greengoblinrulz
09-08-2012, 08:21 PM
Parker was the first million dollar player, was a 2 time batting champ, 7time all star, 3 time gold glover, won 2 World Series as well as an MVP with a 2nd, 2 3rd's & a 5th showing how dominant he was.
His coke use & his knee issues (had em both replaced) blew his 81/83 seasons....anything outta those 3 & he may have some more HOF ammo. He was really good.
Think he shoulda made it before Dawson/Rice.

As for Murphy, no doubt his last 4 yrs really hurt his induction. He just couldnt get to 400HRs (at that time was a milestone for a HOF), but is a perfect example of how sometimes the HOF numbers of that era dont tell the whole story. He didnt have the hits because he was a walk machine, well before OBP was important and scored a ton more runs than Dawson/Rice

kab21
09-08-2012, 08:23 PM
I looked at McGriff a few yrs ago and agreed that he was just below the cut. There are too many sluggers from that era that were just as good or better. And many of them don't have steroid links.

McGriff falls behind Thomas, thome and McGwire (I don't care about the steroids for McGwire but that's another issue) of 1Bman not in the hall and right in with Bagwell, Edgar Martinez and Carlos Delgado. I would put him before Delgado in this tier but I don't think Delgado has a chance to make it. Palmeiro falls into this tier but I'm okay if you want to keep out marginal HOF'ers. And there are still guys like Helton, Grace, Mattingly, Will Clark, Galaragga, and probably another 6-10 similar marginal candidates.

greengoblinrulz
09-08-2012, 08:29 PM
I am of the thought that Dave Parker should be in the HOF. I have read in some places that he was involved with cocaine in the late 70's, early 80's and that had lead to his non-inclusion. If that is the case - shame on the voters. The Cobra was great!

yeah
the coke scandal in the 80s was pretty big. Lots of people involved including Keith Hernandez and our beloved HOFer Paul Molitor. (http://seattletimes.com/html/sports/2001987767_molitor25.html)

Hey Thrylos. I do not know much about this subject other than what I typed (other than I knew Molitor was a user). What is the story on the cocaine thing?

It was called the Pittsburg drug trials......Dale Berra, Lee Lacy, Lee Mazzilli, John Milner,, Dave Parker,, and Rod Scurry — and other notable major league players — Claudell Washingtin, Willie Mays Aikens, Vida Bue, Enols Cabell ,Al Holland, Hernandez, Jeffrey Leonard, Tim Raines, Joaquin Andujar and Lonnie Smith testified with immunity in 1985 against certain dealers.
Raines admitted to sliding headfirst to not break the coke vials that he carried on him as he snorted during games. Milner admitted to buying uppers from HOFers Willie Stargell & WIllie Mays.
Molitor wasnt involved but 7 players were suspended for a yr, 4 for 60days but were allowed to play if they donated 5-10% of their salary to charity.

TK10
09-08-2012, 08:30 PM
The HOF, in my opinion, would be better off keeping more fringe guys out than in. Dave Parker, Andre Dawson, Dale Murphy, Jim Rice, Bert Blyleven, Ron Santo .... these are guys who you could build equally strong cases for them being out as in. And in those cases, you're better off just leaving them out. I worry the place is already becoming the Hall of Very Good.

greengoblinrulz
09-08-2012, 08:36 PM
The HOF, in my opinion, would be better off keeping more fringe guys out than in. Dave Parker, Andre Dawson, Dale Murphy, Jim Rice, Bert Blyleven, Ron Santo .... these are guys who you could build equally strong cases for them being out as in. And in those cases, you're better off just leaving them out. I worry the place is already becoming the Hall of Very Good.
There are just as many guys from 60s/70s that you could argue shouldnt be in either IMO if you are goin with the HOVGood....Duke Snider, Don Drysdale, Lou Boudreau, Bob Lemon, etc among many. Those older players are now just known as HOFers, but they were also the Dawson/Blyleven/Rice's of their era

snepp
09-08-2012, 08:49 PM
Bert amassed 90 bWAR, 110 fWAR, he doesn't really belong in the same conversation as these guys.

TK10
09-08-2012, 08:51 PM
greengoblinrulz (http://www.twinsdaily.com/member.php?1254-greengoblinrulz):

I agree the Hall of Very Good goes way back, but I think it's getting worse. Barry Larkin? I'm not so sure. From what I read most people think Omar Vizquel is going to get in. Really? As for your list, I agree with everyone except Drysdale.

SpiritofVodkaDave
09-08-2012, 09:02 PM
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.

Bark's Lounge
09-08-2012, 09:03 PM
The Duke of Flatbush.... What???

SpiritofVodkaDave
09-08-2012, 09:04 PM
Bert amassed 90 bWAR, 110 fWAR, he doesn't really belong in the same conversation as these guys.

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

snepp
09-08-2012, 09:13 PM
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.

SpiritofVodkaDave
09-08-2012, 09:16 PM
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
09-08-2012, 09:18 PM
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
09-08-2012, 09:20 PM
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
09-08-2012, 09:21 PM
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.

SpiritofVodkaDave
09-08-2012, 09:22 PM
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
09-08-2012, 09:26 PM
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
09-08-2012, 09:30 PM
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.

SpiritofVodkaDave
09-08-2012, 09:32 PM
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.
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.

SpiritofVodkaDave
09-08-2012, 09:34 PM
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
09-08-2012, 09:41 PM
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
09-08-2012, 09:45 PM
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.
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!

SpiritofVodkaDave
09-08-2012, 09:49 PM
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
09-08-2012, 10:01 PM
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
09-08-2012, 10:04 PM
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

SpiritofVodkaDave
09-08-2012, 10:06 PM
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.

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.

SpiritofVodkaDave
09-08-2012, 10:10 PM
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
09-08-2012, 10:11 PM
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.

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
09-08-2012, 10:22 PM
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
09-08-2012, 10:35 PM
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
09-08-2012, 10:40 PM
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.

SpiritofVodkaDave
09-08-2012, 10:49 PM
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
09-08-2012, 11:00 PM
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
09-08-2012, 11:36 PM
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
09-09-2012, 12:10 AM
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
09-09-2012, 12:50 AM
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
09-09-2012, 08:19 AM
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
09-09-2012, 09:09 AM
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.

SpiritofVodkaDave
09-09-2012, 09:38 AM
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
09-09-2012, 11:44 AM
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
09-09-2012, 11:50 AM
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.

Curt
09-09-2012, 12:21 PM
It is not at all surprising that players straddling the line of greatness and very-goodness hover at or below the line of admittance. Especially those that peak at greatness but are quite middling for too long at other points in their careers. Some, possibly deserving, being overlooked and some, possibly not deserving, being elected.

However, it is amazing that certain players are not voted for at all by people who, one would think, should know better.

Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Cy Young, Honus Wagner, Walter Johnson, Joe DiMaggio, Stan Musial, Ted Williams, Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, Henry Aaron, Steve Carlton, Johnny Bench, George Brett, Cal Ripken.

There were voters, members of the Baseball Writers Association of America for at least ten years at the time they voted, that did not vote for each of those guys, as well as EVERY other player in history. How does that happen? How does someone write about baseball for over ten years and not recognize when a player is elite, even when comparing them to the best of all time? I hereby predict someone will not vote for Greg Maddux and Derek Jeter when their times come.

TK10
09-09-2012, 03:29 PM
I guess I have to respectfully disagree with this notion that anyone who thinks Larkin's case is borderline is an idiot. I think he's the classic borderline/fringe candidate. 2,300 hits, 198 home runs, fairly injury prone. If Larkin, why not Alan Trammell? I'm skeptical that one should look at Larkin and automatically think: "Oh yeah, it's nonsense to think this guy doesn't belong along side Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Teddy F'n Ball Game, etc. etc. etc." I think you could make a good case that to really make the HOF special guys like Larkin are exactly who you want to keep out.

biggentleben
09-09-2012, 05:58 PM
I guess I have to respectfully disagree with this notion that anyone who thinks Larkin's case is borderline is an idiot. I think he's the classic borderline/fringe candidate. 2,300 hits, 198 home runs, fairly injury prone. If Larkin, why not Alan Trammell? I'm skeptical that one should look at Larkin and automatically think: "Oh yeah, it's nonsense to think this guy doesn't belong along side Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Teddy F'n Ball Game, etc. etc. etc." I think you could make a good case that to really make the HOF special guys like Larkin are exactly who you want to keep out.

Except that those numbers by a shortstop that was as good as there was in the entire game for most of his career defensively are pretty much unmatched. Larkin's offensive numbers are borderline, but the fact that in most eyes when Ozzie retired, he handed the throne of best defensive shortstop immediately to Larkin with no one close says that those numbers are nowhere near all that matters. Brooks Robinson is in at a less demanding defensive position with worse numbers because of his reputation as a stalwart defender there. Larkin is similarly excellent at SS with better offensive numbers.

TK10
09-09-2012, 06:03 PM
By that rationale one-dimensional players should never get in and that's something I'd be find with. Larkin won 3 gold gloves and had one unusually good offensive season. To me, defense, no matter how good it is, isn't enough to get you into the HOF.

biggentleben
09-09-2012, 06:10 PM
By that rationale one-dimensional players should never get in and that's something I'd be find with. Larkin won 3 gold gloves and had one unusually good offensive season. To me, defense, no matter how good it is, isn't enough to get you into the HOF.

That's the point. Larkin's offensive numbers were elite at his position, but perhaps arguable as borderline HOF worthy on their own. Add in his defense that makes him NOT a one-dimensional player, and he moves way ahead of others who also have borderline offensive cases. He belongs.

snepp
09-09-2012, 06:11 PM
Larkins career OPS+ was 116.......at shortstop. It seems to me you either don't understand offensive scarcity, or are simply ignoring it.


His offensive numbers were FANTASTIC for his position, you cannot ignore that. His case for the hall is hardly built upon defense alone.

Bark's Lounge
09-09-2012, 06:39 PM
Barry Larkin is a legit HOFer. Some may say the Hall is only reserved for the elite. Was Barry Larkin elite? Probably not, but he is one of the best to ever suit up and play the position of SS. One could make arguments on a few players that reside in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Barry Larkin is not one of them.

one_eyed_jack
09-09-2012, 07:03 PM
I tend to err on the side of exclusivity when it comes to the Hall, but Larkin clearly belongs. He's one of the 10 best ever the play the position, and arguably in the top 5.

When you consistently put up the kind of offensive numbers he did while playing elite D at short for a dozen straight years, that's enough to punch your ticket to Cooperstown.

With most guys, it's a stretch to make the argument that they do belong. Larkin is one of those rare guys where I think it's a stretch to say he doesn't.

kab21
09-09-2012, 07:04 PM
I guess I have to respectfully disagree with this notion that anyone who thinks Larkin's case is borderline is an idiot. I think he's the classic borderline/fringe candidate. 2,300 hits, 198 home runs, fairly injury prone. If Larkin, why not Alan Trammell? I'm skeptical that one should look at Larkin and automatically think: "Oh yeah, it's nonsense to think this guy doesn't belong along side Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Teddy F'n Ball Game, etc. etc. etc." I think you could make a good case that to really make the HOF special guys like Larkin are exactly who you want to keep out.

I absolutely think Trammell should be in the HOF so your argument is weak. Both were one of the best SS's in the game for a long time. That is part of my criteria for the HOF. The HOF isn't about only taking the best hitters at 1B/OF.

Bark's Lounge
09-09-2012, 07:07 PM
Although I did not express it in my last thread post. The HOF should be for the great - and not the elite. I wholely endorse Larkin's enshrinement.

Bark's Lounge
09-09-2012, 07:11 PM
I guess I have to respectfully disagree with this notion that anyone who thinks Larkin's case is borderline is an idiot. I think he's the classic borderline/fringe candidate. 2,300 hits, 198 home runs, fairly injury prone. If Larkin, why not Alan Trammell? I'm skeptical that one should look at Larkin and automatically think: "Oh yeah, it's nonsense to think this guy doesn't belong along side Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Teddy F'n Ball Game, etc. etc. etc." I think you could make a good case that to really make the HOF special guys like Larkin are exactly who you want to keep out.

I absolutely think Trammell should be in the HOF so your argument is weak. Both were one of the best SS's in the game for a long time. That is part of my criteria for the HOF. The HOF isn't about only taking the best hitters at 1B/OF.

Trammell should most definitely get more consideration for the Hall - as should his double play partner Lou Whitaker... if he is still eligible?

greengoblinrulz
09-09-2012, 07:25 PM
By that rationale one-dimensional players should never get in and that's something I'd be find with. Larkin won 3 gold gloves and had one unusually good offensive season. To me, defense, no matter how good it is, isn't enough to get you into the HOF.

so only a fraction of the game gets you into the HOF, not a well rounded game?? Major reason I don NOT endorse Frank Thomas as a HOF next year. Just my opinion....not a fan of the DH
Shortstops, like Larkin, or other positions should be measured against others at their position and NOT against everyone else. Part of my bias agaisnt Crime Dog, as he wasnt the best at his position when he played. Absolutely think a guy like Trammal should be thought of more, and also Whitaker

one_eyed_jack
09-09-2012, 07:37 PM
I guess I have to respectfully disagree with this notion that anyone who thinks Larkin's case is borderline is an idiot. I think he's the classic borderline/fringe candidate. 2,300 hits, 198 home runs, fairly injury prone. If Larkin, why not Alan Trammell? I'm skeptical that one should look at Larkin and automatically think: "Oh yeah, it's nonsense to think this guy doesn't belong along side Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Teddy F'n Ball Game, etc. etc. etc." I think you could make a good case that to really make the HOF special guys like Larkin are exactly who you want to keep out.


OK, I'm more of an exclusive Hall guy, but It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of the Legends. When assessing someone's HOF candidacy, the question is not whether they measure up to those guys. If it were, there would be a total of about a dozen guys on in the Hall.

\

Brock Beauchamp
09-09-2012, 07:44 PM
Major reason I don NOT endorse Frank Thomas as a HOF next year. Just my opinion....not a fan of the DH

While I agree that DHs should face a tougher road to get to Cooperstown, Thomas is one of the top 20 RH hitters of all time. He deserves to be enshrined in the Hall. The guy doesn't get half the love he deserves.

TK10
09-09-2012, 08:06 PM
I'm not buying it. Great players are like pornography: I don't know how to define them but I know them when I see them. I don't think Larkin's a great player. I think he was a very good shortstop. 2,300 hits over 19 years isn't great ... it just isn't. And, for the record, I never said defense wasn't important. I don't think Larkin was a great all-around player. He was an excellent defensive player who was a good offensive player. I'd have no problem with it becoming the Hall of Legends, personally. Who cares if you go a couple of years without someone getting inducted? The merchants and hotel owners in Cooperstown, I suppose. Lastly, Alan Trammell isn't a HOFer.

biggentleben
09-09-2012, 08:25 PM
I'm not buying it. Great players are like pornography: I don't know how to define them but I know them when I see them. I don't think Larkin's a great player. I think he was a very good shortstop. 2,300 hits over 19 years isn't great ... it just isn't. And, for the record, I never said defense wasn't important. I don't think Larkin was a great all-around player. He was an excellent defensive player who was a good offensive player. I'd have no problem with it becoming the Hall of Legends, personally. Who cares if you go a couple of years without someone getting inducted? The merchants and hotel owners in Cooperstown, I suppose. Lastly, Alan Trammell isn't a HOFer.

You're not presenting anything to counter any of the overwhelming number of folks who see something much different when they see Larkin. However, you've not once stated anything about seeing him on the field, just continually referenced his hits number. From your comments it seems you're looking at stats only and never truly saw the player because anyone who did have a chance to see him and know him in his era knows Barry was at the top of the game. He was the bridge from Ozzie/Ripken to the Nomar/Jeter/ARod grouping as the best SS in the game. There wasn't anyone in his class for a good portion of his career at his position. He's a Hall of Famer, easy.

one_eyed_jack
09-09-2012, 08:33 PM
I'm not buying it. Great players are like pornography: I don't know how to define them but I know them when I see them. I don't think Larkin's a great player.

---Wow, that's defining greatness pretty darn narrowly. I shudder to think about how graphic something must be for you to think it fits the definition of pornography.

Bark's Lounge
09-09-2012, 08:38 PM
He was the bridge from Ozzie/Ripken to the Nomar/Jeter/ARod grouping as the best SS in the game.

Who would have thought, ten years ago, that Jeter would be the only one those latter three going to the Hall of Fame?

biggentleben
09-09-2012, 08:41 PM
He was the bridge from Ozzie/Ripken to the Nomar/Jeter/ARod grouping as the best SS in the game.

Who would have thought, ten years ago, that Jeter would be the only one those latter three going to the Hall of Fame?

I do believe ARod will make it for the same reason as Bonds. The totality of the numbers will be so large that just the roids argument won't be able to stand up.

Brock Beauchamp
09-09-2012, 08:51 PM
I'm not buying it. Great players are like pornography: I don't know how to define them but I know them when I see them. I don't think Larkin's a great player. I think he was a very good shortstop. 2,300 hits over 19 years isn't great ... it just isn't. And, for the record, I never said defense wasn't important. I don't think Larkin was a great all-around player. He was an excellent defensive player who was a good offensive player. I'd have no problem with it becoming the Hall of Legends, personally. Who cares if you go a couple of years without someone getting inducted? The merchants and hotel owners in Cooperstown, I suppose. Lastly, Alan Trammell isn't a HOFer.

You're not going to convince anyone that your point is valid if you continue to reference hits and ignore every. other. offensive. statistic.

Larkin was a a fantastic defensive shortstop, a good base stealer, and a very, very good hitter. He was the premiere shortstop for several years (and very good for many more) and piled up enough counting stats to deserve entry into Cooperstown. Like I said earlier, it's damned hard to make an argument for Puckett to be in the Hall but not Larkin. Barry played in ~20% more games and sported a ~40% higher WAR. He has a ring. He has an MVP award. Multiple Gold Gloves. Multiple Silver Sluggers.

Bark's Lounge
09-09-2012, 08:55 PM
He was the bridge from Ozzie/Ripken to the Nomar/Jeter/ARod grouping as the best SS in the game.

Who would have thought, ten years ago, that Jeter would be the only one those latter three going to the Hall of Fame?

I do believe ARod will make it for the same reason as Bonds. The totality of the numbers will be so large that just the roids argument won't be able to stand up.

I guess we'll have to wait and see how they are judged. It will be interesting!

TK10
09-09-2012, 08:56 PM
Moeller High School, Cincy, class of '95. Grandpa/father have had season tickets since the 60s. So, yeah, I saw Larkin in person a time or two.

snepp
09-09-2012, 09:00 PM
So basically he's not a hall of famer because......your eyes say so. Does that about sum it up?


Convincing.




So if a couple of the elite shortstops of a league aren't hall of famers, who is?

TK10
09-09-2012, 09:03 PM
Yeah, that's it basically. To me, he's not a HOFer. If he is to you, then bless your heart. I suspect you couldn't care less about my opinion just like I couldn't care less about yours. So it goes.

Bark's Lounge
09-09-2012, 09:04 PM
Moeller High School, Cincy, class of '95. Grandpa/father have had season tickets since the 60s. So, yeah, I saw Larkin in person a time or two.

Geez. You would think you would be all for Larkin's inclusion into the HOF. Do you have a gripe with his family? Did Barry's little sister dump you in 12th grade?

biggentleben
09-09-2012, 09:16 PM
Moeller High School, Cincy, class of '95. Grandpa/father have had season tickets since the 60s. So, yeah, I saw Larkin in person a time or two.

Geez. You would think you would be all for Larkin's inclusion into the HOF. Do you have a gripe with his family? Did Barry's little sister dump you in 12th grade?

Unrequited stalker love. Bastard Larkin!

TK10
09-09-2012, 09:16 PM
Nope, he came back to the school all the time and spoke. He's given money, appeared in ads, all of it. He's a great dude. I'm in no way shape or form annoyed he's in the Hall, he might very well deserve to be there. What annoys me is this notion that it's a slam dunk and anyone who might suggest he shouldn't be in is stupid or "just doesn't get it." Larkin's a guy you could build a case for and could build a case against. But again, it's by no means an outrage he's in.

Bark's Lounge
09-09-2012, 09:28 PM
Nope, he came back to the school all the time and spoke. He's given money, appeared in ads, all of it. He's a great dude. I'm in no way shape or form annoyed he's in the Hall, he might very well deserve to be there. What annoys me is this notion that it's a slam dunk and anyone who might suggest he shouldn't be in is stupid or "just doesn't get it." Larkin's a guy you could build a case for and could build a case against. But again, it's by no means an outrage he's in.

Hey TK10. Your not an A-hole or idiot for arguing against Barry's inclusion into the HOF. I think everyone who responded really enjoyed what he brought to the table. We appreciated his contribution to the game of baseball. In my opinion he flew under the radar a bit. I was laid up in a hospital with a severely broken leg when the Reds won the WS in 1990 - he was great in that series and that was my only joy for that week in time. I hope that you can appreciate that a bunch of non-Cincy residents respect the **** out of one of your home town heroes.:)

TK10
09-09-2012, 09:36 PM
No worries, my Reds days are over, I'm all Twins now, have been since moving here for college. Now, how about a debate about Pete Rose???

Bark's Lounge
09-09-2012, 09:37 PM
Moeller High School, Cincy, class of '95. Grandpa/father have had season tickets since the 60s. So, yeah, I saw Larkin in person a time or two.

Geez. You would think you would be all for Larkin's inclusion into the HOF. Do you have a gripe with his family? Did Barry's little sister dump you in 12th grade?

Unrequited stalker love. Bastard Larkin!

Thanks for playing along!:)

Bark's Lounge
09-09-2012, 09:39 PM
No worries, my Reds days are over, I'm all Twins now, have been since moving here for college. Now, how about a debate about Pete Rose???

Start a new thread. I am sure there will be participants!