His career was a disappointment compared to expectations.

We are obviously remembering two different guys. Griffey was the biggest name in the game for a decade, his Cincy years never happened. I don't think anyone cares about his Cincy years for his hof. He was called a future hofer from the day he stepped onto the major league diamond, and for his first 12 years, he cemented his case. Cincy never happened, I don't know of anyone who follows baseball who thinks Griffey's Cincy years has anything to do with his candidacy(other than allowing him to get a few career milestones)

Griffey was bigger than Clemens, Thomas, Maddux, Bo Jackson and Bonds combined. I think it was a requirement that writers had to preface his name with future hofer, starting his second year in the bigs. It's impossible to overstate how big Griffey was, and then you look at the voters, who are guys who, generally speaking are going to be 50-80 years old when he comes on the ballot. They aren't going to pay attention to his Cincy years. It's the player of the 90's Griffey they are going to remember.

Then you are going to have the young whippersnappers with their fancy numbers and they'll point out how much of a lock he is (note...we aren't talking about the retarded young whippersnappers that are going to look at his career war...those people are too stupid to be listen to, but the rational ones, who will point out 73 war in 12 seasons...Everything after that is unimportant)

Add in the narrative of the clean player(which whether it's true or not, doesn't matter, it's going to go that way) of the two way elite on both sides player who broke his wrist catching a flyball.. who's love of the game was obvious.... Seriously if Griffey doesn't sail in with over 90% then the system is beyond broken.

Griffey's Cincy years began when he had just turned 30! It's impressive that he had a no-doubt Hall of Fame career before that point, but I am guessing it takes him out of the "first-ballot" category for lots of people. Maybe I'm wrong.

Griffey's Cincy years began when he had just turned 30! It's impressive that he had a no-doubt Hall of Fame career before that point, but I am guessing it takes him out of the "first-ballot" category for lots of people. Maybe I'm wrong

I did include his Cincy year in my 12 year 73 war comment, he posted a 5.2 war his first year in Cincy. Of course his career takes a couple of hits in his early going, a strike shortened year, and a broken wrist year. Still if you take his first 10 full seasons, he has 60 war(and again that is with 111 game strike shortened year, and a 72 game broken wrist year).. the names of players who put together 10 year stretches with 60 war are going to be all hofers. (or held out because of suspicion)

List of players who put up 60 war in their first ten years.

I think Junior goes in on the first ballot, but I'd be surprised if he hits 90%. I think a lot of voter will be doing as Davo suggests, and I can't fault them. This ballot should have produced at least 4 inductees, but instead its created a glut that will #### things over for the next 5 years, at least.

Seriously if Griffey doesn't sail in with over 90% then the system is beyond broken.

Agree, but the question is how many of the writers (and there were several) who say they won't vote for "steroids-era" players mean that literally? That would apply to Maddux, Griffey, Jeter et al. To me, this will be the biggest case for change--if guys like this squeak in and don't get near the voting levels of the Seavers, Ripkens, Bretts, and Ryans of the past.

Agree, but the question is how many of the writers (and there were several) who say they won't vote for "steroids-era" players mean that literally? That would apply to Maddux, Griffey, Jeter et al. To me, this will be the biggest case for change--if guys like this squeak in and don't get near the voting levels of the Seavers, Ripkens, Bretts, and Ryans of the past.

That would require 60 voters like that.... don't see it happening.

Griffey is a lock to get inducted eventually. He is not a lock to reach 90%, or even to go in on his first ballot at all.

Griffey is a lock to get inducted eventually. He is not a lock to reach 90%, or even to go in on his first ballot at all.

Maybe not 90% but he's a lock to go in first ballot.

His career was a disappointment compared to expectations.

Hoo boy. What more could he have done?

Uh, Shooty? He posted 6 WAR after age 30.

I don't see any argument that his career _wasn't_ a disappointment. I mean, sure, at 19, you sign for it. But at 30? It was virtually worst case scenario.

But at 30? It was virtually worst case scenario.

His career isn't defined only by what happened after he turned 30. He's probably, what, the 6th best CFer in MLB history? I will own that failure proudly if I'm Griffey.

Uh, Shooty? He posted 6 WAR after age 30.

Yeah, but that's perfectly normal (or at least not disappointing in any way). Elongated primes are primarily a product of the Steroid Era, and HOF-caliber careers often faded as players hit 30. See, among many others, Don Mattingly and Dale Murphy.

The difference of course is that Junior could have been hit by a bus the day he got traded to Cincy and he's an HOFer. The list in 403 doesn't lie.

Yeah, but that's perfectly normal (or at least not disappointing in any way).

With inner circle greats, there is a reasonable expectation that they will do much better than that.

This was an extreme disappointment. And was considered so at the time, when year after year Griffey would come up lame with this injury or that.

Elongated primes are primarily a product of the Steroid Era, and HOF-caliber careers often faded as players hit 30. See, among many others, Don Mattingly and Dale Murphy.

Perhaps you didn't get the memo in 1990, SugarBear, but Don Mattingly hurt his back.

And Griffey played during the steroids era, so I don't know what your argument is, exactly. Shouldn't steroids have helped him to a long, successful second half of his career? Instead, he was Darryl Strawberry without the coke and whores.

(Also, plenty of inner circle greats performed until 40 without steroids.)

I think Griffey is helped because his decline was obviously injury-related, or at least seems to be to most observers. Unlike Raines (or Andruw Jones) Griffey didn't become a part-time player because he wasn't good anymore. The perception is that he was still good, just hurt. And I think that will help him sail in on the first ballot.

Elongated primes are primarily a product of the Steroid Era

I knew Mays and Aaron were users.

Perfectly normal would be a disappointment for Griffey.

If steroids are a non-issue do McGwire, Palmeiro, Sosa make it on the first ballot?

The injuries and disappointment with Griffey were a constant theme soon after he went to the Reds.

Baseball Prospectus comment on Griffey before 2003:

As the condition of Griffey’s legs has regressed from fair to critical, his place in the mind of baseball fans has gone from being a member of the All-Century Team to an afterthought. It’s likely that his rehab and training regimen this past off-season will prove to be the most important factor toward a return to his old form. The playing surface at Great American Park should help, too, because while Cinergy’s AstroTurf was gone when Griffey arrived, the grass that replaced it was too spongy. Mickey Mantle’s career ended prematurely due to bad legs. Let’s hope the same thing doesn’t happen to another Hall of Fame center fielder four decades later. A healthy Griffey in the lineup for 145 games is worth five games in the standings.

Before 2005:

Griffey's injury were even more gut-wrenching in '04, when he went on a home-run binge in May that made people think he may be back, only to succumb to a torn hamstring yet again. Though some have suggested shifting him to a corner outfield slot to lower his injury risk, Griffey's gone down again and again to sudden, violent injuries, leading observers to wonder if his body simply won't prevent him from breaking down. His legacy as a Hall of Famer is secure no matter what happens from here. That's fortunate, since the odds are heavily against him ever again playing a full season.

This was an extreme disappointment. And was considered so at the time, when year after year Griffey would come up lame with this injury or that.

But we are not at the time, we are after the time when we can peacefully reflect on the totality of Griffey's career. The narrative didn't go the way we had hoped but it would be nuts to say that, in reflection, he was a disappointment. For the Reds he was a disappointment, but who cares about the Reds...

But we are not at the time, we are after the time when we can peacefully reflect on the totality of Griffey's career. The narrative didn't go the way we had hoped but it would be nuts to say that, in reflection, he was a disappointment.

I do think he was a disappointment. The first thing I think about when I think of his career is that he couldn't stay healthy in his 30s. How great he was in his 20s plays into that.

He was great, obviously, even if silly people thought he was better than Bonds in the '90s. But his legacy is intertwined with a longing for what might have been.

The totality of his career is truly spectacular but Griffey is a guy I'll always wonder "what if" about. He's somewhat similar to Mantle in that even with the injuries you still got one of the game's true elites but you kind of step away thinking it could have been even more.

an extreme disappointment

If Griffey was a disappointment, it just goes to show the ill-advisedness of projecting any ballplayer to excessive heights. He hit 630 home runs. That's disappointing for people who projected him to hit 800, agreed, but seriously.

By the same token, AROD is a disappointment; Albert Pujols might well be a disappointment. These guys all have achieved amazing things; they just didn't achieve unrealistic things.

For the Reds he was a disappointment, but who cares about the Reds...

Hey now!

Actually, from 2001-2009, not even many Reds fans cared about the Reds.

Before 2005:

2004 is when Griffey tore his hamstring completely off the bone. He worked his ass off to come back from that, and, after looking rusty during April 2005, hit .313 with a .619 slg% the rest of the way (34hr in 409ab), at age 35. The dude could still really hit.

If Griffey was a disappointment, it just goes to show the ill-advisedness of projecting any ballplayer to excessive heights.

Depends what you mean by "excessive," I guess, and that can be debated, but I'm certain that line starts much higher than 6 WAR post age 30 for an all-time great player.

Certainly there are things to admire about Bonds's career, or even stand in awe of ... but celebrate?

One thinks not.

Uh yeah the fact that he was a top 5 player of all time is something to celebrate. What the hell are you even talking about?

Griffey's probably going to have to wait a year.

I'd be delighted to BBRef wager with you on that claim.

Happy to! Now to save the thread. (How much? $15?)

To be clear, I think Griffey's maybe 40/60 or 33/67 to make it first ballot. Wouldn't shock me, but I don't think it's the most likely outcome. I think you're really overestimating the impact of an MVP peak that doesn't involve milestone numbers, and underestimating the impact of a decade of a blah decline and injury. We'll see - obviously I'm rooting for Griffey. I loved that guy, saved his Fleer rookie card in a special very ugly plastic case, and he's a complete no-brainer for the Hall. But I think we're going to have to wait an extra year or two before he gets in.

Elongated primes are primarily a product of the Steroid Era, and HOF-caliber careers often faded as players hit 30.

Elongated primes are actually a product of the Amphetamine Era. The big career milestone records (homers, hits, runs, ribbies) all fell to Amphetamine Era superstars.

He hit 630 home runs. That's disappointing for people who projected him to hit 800, agreed, but seriously.

I think this is where I am. You're right that it's unrealistic expectations on my part but emotions are what they are.

Reading this I thought of Carl Lewis at the 1984 olympics. As great as he was with 4 gold medals and all the failure to break Beamon's long jump record was a big deal at the time. I remember there being a smattering of boos (amidst mostly cheers) when he came up short. That's what everyone was waiting to see and it was probably unfair of all of us to ask such great feats but it didn't feel unreasonable at the time.

I think you're really overestimating the impact of an MVP peak that doesn't involve milestone numbers, and underestimating the impact of a decade of a blah decline and injury.

630 home runs!

2004 is when Griffey tore his hamstring completely off the bone. He worked his ass off to come back from that, and, after looking rusty during April 2005, hit .313 with a .619 slg% the rest of the way (34hr in 409ab), at age 35. The dude could still really hit.

If you could go back and do it over again, he should stay in Seattle and DH. And not run at all on ground balls. That wasn't him - he really seemed to love playing CF - but he probably stays much healthier that way.

Ray and Shooty are both right, of course. His injury riddled 30s were terribly disappointing. Just not all that unusual (see Mantle, for instance). One really can't assume consistent production over two decades.

You're ignoring the Intangible quality that Griffey was the first ever modern Premium Baseball Card ever produced (Card #1 of Upper Deck's Inaugural 1989 Set). Color pictures on the front AND back!

Don't know who card #2 was, but Griffey sealed his First Ballot status with that first Upper Deck set.

Happy to! Now to save the thread. (How much? $15?)

To be clear, I think Griffey's maybe 40/60 or 33/67 to make it first ballot. Wouldn't shock me, but I don't think it's the most likely outcome. I think you're really overestimating the impact of an MVP peak that doesn't involve milestone numbers, and underestimating the impact of a decade of a blah decline and injury. We'll see - obviously I'm rooting for Griffey. I loved that guy, saved his Fleer rookie card in a special very ugly plastic case, and he's a complete no-brainer for the Hall. But I think we're going to have to wait an extra year or two before he gets in.

To account for your uncertainty vs. my unimpeachable faith, I'm OK with $25 sponsorship if you win, $15 if I do.

Ray and Shooty are both right, of course. His injury riddled 30s were terribly disappointing. Just not all that unusual (see Mantle, for instance). One really can't assume consistent production over two decades.

Assume it, no, but the issue is whether he was a disappointment. It's not unreasonable to hope for more.

630 home runs isn't anything special nowadays, when 609 and 762 will be loitering around for years with no love and 612 might not get attention right away either.

Ken Griffey Jr cannot be said to have had a disappointing career in the aggregate. He's just short of being an inner-circle Hall of Famer, and that's a wonderful thing to be. He was greater than, say, Jeff Bagwell or Duke Snider or Roberto Clemente.

But when Ken Griffey Jr was 29, he'd already had a Hall of Fame lock career. If he had just quit baseball instead of signing with Cincinnati, his career would have been no less great than it turned out to be. From the perspective of 1999, Griffey was a good bet to surpass DiMaggio and you could squint and see a guy heading for the inner concentric circle of the inner circle and trying to bump Speaker or Cobb out in the metaphorical game of curling that is the ranking of all-time greats. There is a perspective from within his career by which Griffey clearly disappointed.

Seems like lots of top center fielders besides Griffey are done contributing by about age 31. For example Andruw, Snider, Pinson, Cedeno, Dale Murphy, Mantle, Blair, Monday, and Lynn.

I think you're really overestimating the impact of an MVP peak that doesn't involve milestone numbers, and underestimating the impact of a decade of a blah decline and injury.

630 home runs!

I didn't mean career numbers, I meant eye-popping or record-breaking individual season numbers. Pedro's 1.74 ERA, the big HR seasons of peak sillyball, Brett or Gwynn hitting .390, Ichiro's 250 hits. Griffey was great at everything, and his incredible power numbers pale somewhat in comparison to what came after. He only won 1 MVP.

I'm not disparaging his Hall of Fame case, which should in fact be blindingly obvious. But I'm saying that there's just enough non-obvious greatness there to stick in the craw of our worse HoF voters.

Uh yeah the fact that he was a top 5 player of all time is something to celebrate. What the hell are you even talking about?

If you use the "Neutralized Batting" tool at BBRef and adjust Bonds' career to the 1968 Dodgers, he hits 259/395/525 with 634 home runs. That's one of my favorite statistical absurdities.

A Griffey-Bonds comparison is interesting in several ways. One narrative about Griffey was that he didn't work hard enough to take care of himself and that some of his breakdown in his 30s was because of that. I have no idea if it's true or not, but that was a narrative. Bonds of course had a legendary work ethic, and one can view his PED usage as an instance of being the anti-Griffy, someone excessively devoted to self-improvement. They both had a space of over a decade when they were great players, and if each had been hit by a bus at the end of that period they would have been obvious Hall of Famers. Then Griffey broke down and Bonds bulked up. It'd make an easy morality play about the value of the moderation, a story in which both principals make the wrong choice. Craig Biggio can be the hero.

To account for your uncertainty vs. my unimpeachable faith, I'm OK with $25 sponsorship if you win, $15 if I do.

Done and done, sir.

What the hell are you even talking about?

That his career, taken in its entirety, isn't worthy of celebration -- any more than Lance Armstrong's or Ben Johnson's are. Was that unclear?

That his career, taken in its entirety, isn't worthy of celebration. Was that unclear?

No, "unclear" is not a word I'd use. I doubt you'd like the word I'd use, though :-)

Agree, but the question is how many of the writers (and there were several) who say they won't vote for "steroids-era" players mean that literally?

Alomar 90%; Larkin 86%

On Griffey:

630 HR, 1800 RBI, 1600 R
10 GG
MVP votes in 10 seasons
1 MVP, 4 other top 5
13 AS games
3 #1 WARpos, 2 2nds and a 5th
MLB All-Century Team
Voted player of the 90s ... by the players!

Career voters will love Griffey
Peak voters will love Griffey
Anti-roid voters will love Griffey*
Saber-friendly voters will love Griffey
Cincy are voters may not love Griffey

Unless 10% of the BBWAA is in Cincy ...

*They will note that Griffey's injury-riddled 30s are proof that he didn't do roids.

Griffey's "only 6 WAR after 30" is being overstated. Griffey had a perfectly respectable 14 oWAR after 30. He loses 8 wins to defense. That's probably accurate but that was not the public perception. Nobody outside saber circles was talking about how bad he was in CF until the very end, at least not that I recall. He was an "injured star" not worthless.

Crowded ballot, blah, blah, blah but, c'mon, Puckett got 82%. Alomar debuted at 74 then got 90. The oft-injured Larkin eventually got 86.

Griffey had a perfectly respectable 14 oWAR after 30

So, basically, the equivalent of three or four good years with the bat, spread over a decade. And if not spread out that still leaves him done at 35.

After age 30 his best seasons by oWAR are 4.7, 2.8, and then everything under 2. I'm not sure what you're arguing, Walt. That wasn't a bitter disappointment? He had nine seasons better than 4.7 oWAR before that point. Including seven seasons at 6 or above.

Nobody outside saber circles was talking about how bad he was in CF until the very end, at least not that I recall.

It's kind of like talking about how slow somebody is on crutches. Griffey wasn't physically capable of playing the position once the injuries piled up. It's on the Reds for letting him stay out there and not trying to find a better solution.

Then again, they were playing Adam Dunn. Perhaps they were judging Griffey by comparison.

Who broke the page, anyway? Was it cardsfanboy?

There is a perspective from within his career by which Griffey clearly disappointed

I can see that perspective. For quite a while, Juan Gonzalez was tracking Griffey's career in notable ways, and I'm still waiting for him to hit even his 450th home run. On his own scale, Gonzalez was a disappointment too, though there's another scale where almost anybody who ever played the game would trade career lines with Gonzalez, let alone Griffey.

Just for fun, HOFers with <6 WAR after age 30:



And some pitchers:



Joss, Dean, and Koufax don't even show up in the latter list, not pitching enough after 30 for various reasons.

Kinda meaningless, but does show that a lot of guys make nearly all their impact before age 31.

George Kell 5.5
Joe Kelley 4.9
High Pockets Kelly 2.7
King Kelly 6.0

Looks like Casey Kelly only has 7 years left to build his Hall of Fame case.

Maybe instead of a protest meeting @ Cooperstown we should just turn the Hall of Merit into a real museum. Or at least a virtual museum. Or at least something better than this:

What kind of features would attract? Let "visitors" cast their own HOM ballot based on either the historical HOF or the HOM version?

And more to the point, here's a slice of position-player HOFers who had more than 6 but less than 10 WAR after age 30:



The percentage of "mistakes" is lower here than in the <6 list. Santo, Vaughn, and Snider are perhaps not "inner-circle," but they are top-ten careers at their positions (as is Griffey).

Maybe instead of a protest meeting @ Cooperstown we should just turn the Hall of Merit into a real museum. Or at least a virtual museum. Or at least something better than this:

What kind of features would attract? Let "visitors" cast their own HOM ballot based on either the historical HOF or the HOM version?

That's always been the answer to the beefs around here. Just organize your own vote for MVP and the other awards, and your own Hall of Fame, rather like the Shadow Fed and the Shadow SEC (or for that matter the ESPN Top 25 college football poll, after decades of just the AP and UPI). Give them an name and lay out the criteria and the bona fides of the selectors. If it gains public acceptance, it does; if it doesn't, it doesn't.

Frankly, I'm surprised someone hasn't run with this by now.

I didn't realize that Jon Heyman wrote an article called "Why Bonds Belongs in the Hall" in April 2011.

Less than two years later, he's this guy:

Proud of @CBSSports and @MLBNetwork voters, who stood against steroids. @ScottMCBS @DKnobler @Ken_Rosenthal @pgammo verducci

Weird.

I didn't realize that Jon Heyman wrote an article called "Why Bonds Belongs in the Hall" in April 2011.

Less than two years later, he's this guy:

Opportunistic self-serving blowhard. They are both the same guy. You're mistake is assuming he believes anything he writes.

Heyman wouldn't be the first baseball writer to have a nasty emotional breakup with himself after steroids stopped being cool.

Denying Barry Bonds the honor of the Hall of Fame is a case of passing judgment on Barry Bonds. Stripping Barry Bonds of his statistical line, or stripping the 2002 Giants of their pennant, amounts to re-writing history in a crude and scattershot way. I don't think that the NCAA should exactly be our guide here, and Armstrong participated in an individual sport. If Bonds had been an Olympic champion I could see the comparison.

I dont think your position here is as simple as you put it here. Admittedly, the steroid issue is not simple for many of us. But are you saying that Bonds is merely dishonorable, or did he really cheat?

Most of the people against Bonds/steroid users say that they cheated. Is that your position? That Bonds and anyone who took steroids cheated? Or that Bonds and/or steroid users are merely "dishonorable" e.g. a racist or someone who beats spectators?

There is a difference no?