BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: McGriff elected unanimously to Hall on Contemporary Era ballot

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, December 04, 2022

McGriff elected unanimously to Hall on Contemporary Era ballot

The National Baseball Hall of Fame announced the results tonight for the Contemporary Baseball Era Players Committee’s voting, electing Fred McGriff to the Hall of Fame Class of 2023.

Albert Belle, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Don Mattingly, McGriff, Dale Murphy, Rafael Palmeiro and Curt Schilling made up the Contemporary Baseball Era ballot, which featured candidates whose primary contribution to the game came in 1980 or later.

Candidates needed to receive votes on 75% of the ballots cast by the committee to earn election.,

Results of the Contemporary Baseball Era Players Ballot (12 votes needed for election): Fred McGriff (16 votes, 100.0%); Don Mattingly (8 votes, 50%); Curt Schilling (7 votes, 43.8%); Dale Murphy (6 votes, 37.5%); Belle, Bonds, Clemens and Palmeiro each received fewer than 4
— Jon Heyman (@JonHeyman) December 5, 2022

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 04, 2022 at 08:29 PM | 98 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: fred mcgriff, hall of fame candidates

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

1. The Duke Posted: December 04, 2022 at 08:32 PM (#6107910)

So I guess McGriff goes in as a Brave ?

2. bachslunch Posted: December 04, 2022 at 08:35 PM (#6107912)

Very glad for McGriff, as I think he's a reasonable choice.

Sadly, not surprised that Clemens and Bonds got very few votes. Pretty unfortunate that Mattingly placed second, as I don't think he's deserving at all, though he didn't get especially close. Wasn't sure how Schilling would fare, but looks like he didn't do all that great.

3. Ziggy: social distancing since 1980 Posted: December 04, 2022 at 08:36 PM (#6107913)

The hall of fame is a national disgrace.

4. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: December 04, 2022 at 08:42 PM (#6107917)

once Baines was put in, the HOF designation is meaningless

5. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 04, 2022 at 08:45 PM (#6107920)

So I guess McGriff goes in as a Brave ?

He goes in as back-to-back-to-back AAU champs.

6. Booey Posted: December 04, 2022 at 08:54 PM (#6107921)

7. The Duke Posted: December 04, 2022 at 09:10 PM (#6107926)

I read it differently. Mattingly is getting traction because he's beginning to be seen as a baseball lifer (like Torre). If he gets in it will be on the basis of all his accomplishments - it's not unreasonable. Schilling got some consideration - it was just too soon. I think he'll go back on and get 8-10 votes and then get 12. Some time needs to pass for him. Murphy - he's doing the same he's always done. He's has some supporters and others who think he didn't do enough. Isn't that what most people think in aggregate? The PED guys - never happening at least while they are alive. McGwire is the most interesting case for the PED guys - full on apology. Back in the game as a coach - will he be rehabilitated ? And if yes, is that the path for the others? The problem for McGwire is his case, PEDs aside, is borderline. He might not have made it anyhow.

8. Mike A Posted: December 04, 2022 at 09:10 PM (#6107927)

Happy for McGriff. That's five of the 1995 Braves now in the Hall of Fame (6 including Bobby Cox). Hoping he'll wear a Braves cap.

Sad for Dale, though I realize his career probably isn't good enough for election.

Not going to shed any tears for Schilling.

9. Howie Menckel Posted: December 04, 2022 at 09:15 PM (#6107928)

congrats to Crime Dog

10. Cooper Teenoh Posted: December 04, 2022 at 09:20 PM (#6107930)

Honestly, having one of the two least deserving HoFers on this committee, along with Arte Moreno - an owner who managed to squander two of the most transcendent stars in baseball history and furloughed staff during Covid to boot - signaled that it's a farce. Glad for McGriff, but the Hall continues its slide further into irrelevance.

11. Booey Posted: December 04, 2022 at 09:21 PM (#6107931)

#7 - If McGriff is a unanimous (VC) HOFer, there's no way in hell McGwire is "borderline, PED's aside". Mac crushes Crime Dog statistically.

12. TJ Posted: December 04, 2022 at 09:23 PM (#6107933)

Congratulations to Fred McGriff on his HOF selection, and congrats to the 1986 Fleer and Donruss baseball sets for finally getting a HOFer rookie card! (Ahhh, those days of innocence when we thought that honor would go to the Jose Canseco RCs…)

13. Tony S Posted: December 04, 2022 at 09:26 PM (#6107934)

Congratulations to the Crime Dog. He probably would have made it in a few years ago if his career hadn't wound down just as sillyball was taking off.

Dale Murphy was a Hall of Fame "feels-liker" during his prime, and if he hadn't hit the cliff so suddenly and steeply in 1988 his counting stats probably would have gotten him in. That said, if we're going to give a plaque to a "well-respected and popular classy guy with borderline-at-best on-field credentials", Dale Murphy would have been a much better choice than Harold Baines.

Clemens, Bonds, and Schilling should be in.

14. The Duke Posted: December 04, 2022 at 09:30 PM (#6107936)

It's a little bit of "who was your favorite boyfriend amongst us" married with "who gets to claim this guy for their team's HOF events ". It's a counting stat for teams. I think it's a really big deal for teams that don't have many inductees. If Goldschmidt chooses the Cardinals that would suck for Arizona - they only have one guy.

15. Tony S Posted: December 04, 2022 at 09:38 PM (#6107937)

"Fewer than 4 votes" sounds like a diplomatic way to say "zero".

16. The Duke Posted: December 04, 2022 at 09:43 PM (#6107938)

McGwire doesn't have 2000 hits which has always been a big dividing line for the Hall. He's slightly below average for a 1B on JAWS and he quit early. He missed two seasons in his prime which really hurt. Putting aside the PEDs he's better hitter and power hitter than McGriff but you have to think they are a lot closer on a level playing field. Neither did well with the writers. McGwire got a peak of 23% and McGriff got 39

A lot of voters ok with PEDs didn't vote for McGwire to get in. I think the voters thought they were both borderline

17. SoSH U at work Posted: December 04, 2022 at 09:47 PM (#6107939)

Honestly, having one of the two least deserving HoFers on this committee, along with Arte Moreno - an owner who managed to squander two of the most transcendent stars in baseball history and furloughed staff during Covid to boot - signaled that it's a farce.

I still don't get why we would think one's merits as a player has any bearing on their ability to evaluate the worthiness of other players. Morris is a poor choice because he comes off as an idiot, not because he was a poor Hall selection.

"Fewer than 4 votes" sounds like a diplomatic way to say "zero".

Unless they voted strategically (recognizing the PED guys had no chance), Neal and Slasser likely voted for Bonds and Clemens.

McGwire without PED issues is not borderline.

18. Booey Posted: December 04, 2022 at 09:49 PM (#6107940)

#16 - I'd be very surprised if more than a handful of voters snubbed McGwire for non PED reasons. He was a historically great slugger (HR's, slugging percentage, OPS+), not merely another good hitter in an era full of them like McGriff was. They're not comparable (and I loved McGriff).

19. Booey Posted: December 04, 2022 at 10:01 PM (#6107942)

Speaking of the "McG's", McGwire and McGriff are the only 2 players I can think of to lead both leagues in homers, but MLB TV said during the announcement that Crime Dog was one of 4 players to do it; who were the other 2? Deadballers who led each league with single digits?

20. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: December 04, 2022 at 10:11 PM (#6107944)

Crime Dog! Should've been elected on nickname alone. None of this J-xxx or A-xxx cr*p. A genuine nickname like the Big Hurt or The Big unit or the Penguin.

Really good player and I'm happy to see him in. No Bonds, Clemens or Schilling is what I expected from these voters. Not how I'd have it, but it is what it is.

21. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: December 04, 2022 at 10:15 PM (#6107945)

Crime Dog was one of 4 players to do it; who were the other 2?

Frank Robinson?

I'm taking stabs in the dark here...

22. DL from MN Posted: December 04, 2022 at 10:26 PM (#6107947)

I guess the question now is whether the induction ceremony will be McGriff by himself or Rolen will join him. I suppose they could do something fun like keep Rolen out and elect Billy Wagner instead.

23. Booey Posted: December 04, 2022 at 10:35 PM (#6107948)

#21 - Nope, Frank Robinson's triple crown season was the only time he led
his league in any of those categories.

Edit: I also thought about Dick Allen, but both his HR titles came with the White Sox.

24. Sweatpants Posted: December 04, 2022 at 10:44 PM (#6107949)

Darrell Evans? Did he ever lead the NL?

25. The Duke Posted: December 04, 2022 at 10:49 PM (#6107950)

Johnny Mize ?

26. The Duke Posted: December 04, 2022 at 10:50 PM (#6107951)

Dick Allen ?

27. SoSH U at work Posted: December 04, 2022 at 10:51 PM (#6107952)

I think your original impression was correct Booey. I think McGwire and McGriff are the only ones who have done it.

28. Booey Posted: December 04, 2022 at 10:59 PM (#6107953)

It's not Evans, Allen, or Mize. I think we're looking in the wrong place by thinking of AL/NL players from the liveball era. My guess is it's either:

A) Deadballers we don't think of as power hitters

B) NeL players

Or

C) MLB TV was just plain wrong and no one else has done it

I kinda like the symmetry if McGwire and McGriff are the only ones; 2 first basemen whose names begin with McG, both born in Oct of 1963, both debuted with a cup of coffee in 1986 before surpassing rookie limits in 1987.

29. Sweatpants Posted: December 04, 2022 at 11:02 PM (#6107954)

It's not C. I did some digging(/cheating) and found a pre-Deadballer who did it with totals of 25 and 13. I assume that means that there's another guy, too.

30. DanG Posted: December 04, 2022 at 11:02 PM (#6107955)

A HOFer, "Wahoo" Sam Crawford; and Buck Freeman, a damn fine hitter.

EDIT: Harry Stovey led the NL twice and the AA thrice. Hardy Richardson led the NL and the PL. Bug Holliday led the AA and the NL.

31. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 04, 2022 at 11:03 PM (#6107956)

I tend to be more of a peak HOF guy, but I don't have a problem with McGriff getting in. 493 home runs, even if a lot of that came in the wackyball era, is still very impressive.

I think the issue with McGwire is that many people think his career probably would have been effectively over by age 30 had it not been for PEDs. That's what seems unfair about some of these cases - Murphy and Mattingly fell off a cliff in their 30s, while McGwire and Palmeiro put up some of their best numbers.

32. The Duke Posted: December 04, 2022 at 11:13 PM (#6107958)

Anyone care to guess the next three players after McGriff on the all time HR list who haven't been inducted (ie passed over )? For instance Beltre is at 477 but hasn't come to a vote yet. Three names I wouldn't have guessed and none of them will make a vets ballot

The first guy got 3.8% and fell off ballot in first year
The next guy got exactly one vote from the writers and fell off in first year
The next guy (tie with one above) got 1.1% and fell off in first year

33. John DiFool2 Posted: December 04, 2022 at 11:18 PM (#6107959)

No Bonds, Clemens or Schilling is what I expected from these voters.

My original assumption was that the roiders would serve c. 20 years or so in purgatory, but eventually a consensus would slowly form that it is time to finally let them in, bygones being bygones and all that, new perspectives from a younger voting body helping. [Toss Schill into that group if you want]

This election however raises the very real possibility that they'll all go to their final reward without ever getting in, and may not even in the next 50 or even 100 years. If the writers also voted on the various VC's they might still get in eventually but all bets may be off now.

34. Walt Davis Posted: December 04, 2022 at 11:22 PM (#6107960)

I think Canseco is at 420-something; so is Kingman; and I assume Darrell Evans might be in the 400s.

Off to check.

EDIT: Canseco yes, he's higher than I recalled. The other two have totals similar to what I thought but are beaten by more recent players.

35. Booey Posted: December 04, 2022 at 11:33 PM (#6107962)

#32 - I'm guessing Delgado, Canseco, and Adam Dunn? Without looking I think Delgado finished in the 470's and Canseco and Dunn were in the 460's.

Soriano, Konerko, and Kingman are somewhere in that tier too (440's?)

36. Rough Carrigan

Posted: December 04, 2022 at 11:44 PM (#6107963)

Kind of a ridiculous result. What's the point of this committee? McGriff simply didn't impress nearly enough people that he was a hall of famer. But he gets unanimous support while Bonds, Clemens and Schilling get stiffed. And half a career that's worth it Mattingly is next? Doing a decent job managing some crap Marlins teams makes up for loss of power over the last half of his career? Um, okay. I wasn't sure exactly what the job of this committee was.
I guess a previous poster was right, it's to elect marginally qualified candidates who had nice stories.

37. Walt Davis Posted: December 04, 2022 at 11:55 PM (#6107964)

Booey is correct -- in fact Dunn and Canseco are tied (Delgado is #1). #4 is Nelson Cruz who hasn't been considered yet, not sure if he'll be back next year to move up the list. Kingman 5 then Giambi and Konerko. Soriano is well back at 412 (behind Evans even).

The guy with 424 will surprise you! Unless you were paying more attention than me which apparently wasn't hard.

38. DCA Posted: December 05, 2022 at 12:25 AM (#6107966)

Mattingly and Murphy were the biggest stars of the 80s. In retrospect, they were good but not quite as good as contemporary perception, and neither lasted long enough to have a strong HOF case (for me, Murphy is just over the line and Mattingly is not). So I understand how someone who was paying close attention in the 80's but without modern stats expertise could see them as worthy.

McGriff wasn't in the Mattingly/Murphy tier by reputation, he obviously had more career bulk but I'm suprised he was unanimous while the other two were 50% or less.

39. Booey Posted: December 05, 2022 at 01:16 AM (#6107969)

#37 - Edwin Encarnacion?

40. Booey Posted: December 05, 2022 at 02:07 AM (#6107973)

Random McGriff numbers:

- He hit 30 homers 10 times without ever reaching 40 (thanks, 1994!). The next most such seasons I could find was 7, by Paul Goldschmidt (several other players had 6).

- He topped 100 rbi 8 times but with a career high of just 107. All 8 of his 100 rbi seasons were between 101-107.

- He hit 30 homers with 5 different teams. Did anyone else do that other than the fellow Tampa native on his similarity list, Gary Sheffield?

41. MuttsIdolCochrane Posted: December 05, 2022 at 04:51 AM (#6107975)

Good with McGriff what about Keith Hernandez now?

42. Cooper Nielson Posted: December 05, 2022 at 05:15 AM (#6107976)

- He hit 30 homers with 5 different teams. Did anyone else do that other than the fellow Tampa native on his similarity list, Gary Sheffield?

Nelson Cruz, sort of. He hit 30+ with the Rangers, Orioles, Mariners, and Twins, and in 2021 he hit his 30th HR in a Rays uniform, but he hit his first 19 that year with the Twins.

43. Cooper Nielson Posted: December 05, 2022 at 05:18 AM (#6107977)

- He hit 30 homers with 5 different teams. Did anyone else do that other than the fellow Tampa native on his similarity list, Gary Sheffield?

Jose Canseco got close -- 30+ with the A's, Rangers, Blue Jays, and (Devil) Rays, and 28 with the Red Sox.

44. The Duke Posted: December 05, 2022 at 07:27 AM (#6107978)

35. Correct

So I guess the magic number for HRs is 475. Above there and you are in. Below there you need more.

45. sanny manguillen Posted: December 05, 2022 at 08:04 AM (#6107980)

As I said in the other thread, I think they probably gave him credit for 10-15 homers missed during the 1994-95 work stoppage. That put him over 500 homers, which created a strong presumption for induction.

46. JRVJ Posted: December 05, 2022 at 08:13 AM (#6107981)

I don't mind McGriff being inducted. He's the classic Vets committee inductee.

I do mind the Hall's passive aggressive attitude towards Bonds, Clemens, et. al. Either they are eligible or they are not.

If they are not eligible, have the integrity to simply ban them from possible induction, and stop wasting everybody's time.

47. DL from MN Posted: December 05, 2022 at 08:13 AM (#6107982)

What's the point of this committee?

The Era Committee is a club. They're figuring out who they want to invite to the yearly party. Nobody wants to spend time with Bonds, Clemens or Schilling.

48. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: December 05, 2022 at 08:33 AM (#6107983)

I don't mind McGriff being inducted. He's the classic Vets committee inductee.

I do mind the Hall's passive aggressive attitude towards Bonds, Clemens, et. al. Either they are eligible or they are not.

If they are not eligible, have the integrity to simply ban them from possible induction, and stop wasting everybody's time.

This pretty much nails it.

McGriff being in is...fine. He neither raises nor lowers the bar for the HOF. Neither his absence, nor presence, in the Hall is a matter to outrage anybody. His top 10 comps include McCovey, Stargell, Bagwell, and Billy Williams. They also include Konerko, Delgado, Giambi, and Sheffield. He is somewhere in the middle of all that.

As for the BB/RC/Schilling stuff, I think they should all be in, and I was hoping this committee might bite the PR bullet all at once, do this, have them all give a speech at the same ceremony next summer (a summer when this committee's selections might be the only inductees). There would be fans from San Francisco, and Boston, and NY, and Pittsburgh, and Phily, etc., and there would be protestors. It would be loud, and messy, and kind of fascinating, and then...it would be over.

But now, and probably for the next 10-20 years, whenever this committee's turn comes up, we'll be dragging out this same debate, which doesn't help baseball a bit. And because McGriff is now in, the committee will feel compelled to induct somebody...probably either Dale Murphy or (apparently?) Don Mattingly.

Mattingly came close to getting in this year on the "combined accomplishments" resume, I guess. Well, Cito Gaston has more wins, a better W/L%, and two championships. Only 19 managers in history have a winning record and multiple titles - among those eligible, all but two are in the HOF. Mattingly has none of these things (I'm not advocating for Gaston - just sayin'.). And Dale Murphy? In the process of avoiding dealing with some of the greatest players in history in front of their noses, they are instead going to...well, Harold Baines is already in, so we are already there.

Just ban Bonds, Clemens, and/or Schilling from the ballot if you're going to disqualify them for their past behavior; otherwise, put them in. This is passive-aggressive, and this point, it is simply to rub their nose in it, rather than to actually evaluate candidacies.

49. salvomania Posted: December 05, 2022 at 09:21 AM (#6107985)

Still remember well a spring training game in March 1988, Cardinals vs. Jays, featuring McGriff---who was mostly a part-time DH in his rookie year of 1987 while being blocked at 1B by Willie Upshaw.

He homered, and a gentleman sitting directly behind me said, to no one in particular but to everyone around him, "That's my boy!" And the way he said it sounded as if he meant it literally, and I began chatting with him, and it was Fred's dad, and told me that he was excited because the Jays had just traded Upshaw to open up 1B for McGriff full time. Turned out to be a great decision.

Can still see his face and hear the timbre of his voice---I remember almost nothing from 1984-1997, but there are a few things that I've retained, and that's one of them.

50. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: December 05, 2022 at 09:37 AM (#6107987)

Repeating what I said in the other thread, I'm fine with McGriff getting elected, but even ignoring the PED guys, the vote totals for Mattingly, Murphy, and especially Schilling bother me. It tells me that likeability was the single most important criterion in this election.

This is a weird comment considering that Murphy seems like an great guy and very well-liked, while Schilling is the opposite.
And they both did just as poorly in the committee voting.

51. The Duke Posted: December 05, 2022 at 09:42 AM (#6107988)

47. Exactly. It's a club and it's way for club members to reward insiders. It's perfectly fine as long as they aren't allowed too many picks. This is why they tightened up voting, to ensure it would be hard to put in multiple players which is what started happening. 16 for 16 signals that vote collusion is now being allowed. And that's fine. It's more powerful for someone to get 16. All in all, it's a good answer.

Can someone please put Keith Hernandez on a ballot? I'm ok if he never gets in but can he at least get one chance ?

52. DL from MN Posted: December 05, 2022 at 09:50 AM (#6107989)

Can someone please put Keith Hernandez on a ballot? I'm ok if he never gets in but can he at least get one chance?

How about Lou Whitaker? Maybe they can screen in the best players who are likely to get elected by this committee instead.

53. sotapop Posted: December 05, 2022 at 09:58 AM (#6107992)

Bit of a non-sequitur on this thread, but seeing McGriff and Mattingly on the ballot reminded me of something... when I was a kid, I had a NY Yankees yearbook, early '80s, and in the back was a "Future Stars" section with B&W thumbnail photos and a paragraph on each player.

Mattingly and McGriff were right next to each other, both listed as first basemen. Even as a little kid, I knew they both couldn't be future Yankees stars, and as we know the Yankees picked Mattingly and flipped Crime Dog to the Jays.

For a few years it looked like the right choice, and I suppose the Yankees couldn't have predicted Mattingly would injure his back and never really hit well after 1989. But in hindsight, McGriff surely had the more valuable career, right? And just imagine if he'd played 15 to 20 years shooting at the short right field porch in Yankee Stadium.

Baseball what-ifs are fun.

54. SoSH U at work Posted: December 05, 2022 at 10:15 AM (#6107993)

Can someone please put Keith Hernandez on a ballot? I'm ok if he never gets in but can he at least get one chance?

Lou made a ballot. He came up short.

Now Grich, in contrast, has never even gotten the chance to get rejected by the Vets committee in favor of less-qualified players.

The Hall has never wanted to take a stand on the PED guys, for obvious reasons. For every three fans on sites like who are pissed off by the best players from Bonds-Clemens era not being inducted, there are five fans in the rest of the baseball world who would be outraged if they were included. The Hall would much rather leave it to the various voting bodies to hammer out.

55. DL from MN Posted: December 05, 2022 at 10:25 AM (#6107996)

Lou made a ballot. He came up short.

He got more votes than Murphy or Mattingly.

56. Jim P Posted: December 05, 2022 at 11:00 AM (#6108004)

"Fewer than 4 votes" sounds like a diplomatic way to say "zero".

I don't think so. 16 voters, 3 votes each is 48 votes. The top four got 37 votes, leaving 11 for the remaining four, so it has to be 3/3/3/2, assuming everyone voted for three.

It mentions "deliberations", so presumably some of the voters became convinced that there was enough opposition to Bonds and Clemens (and Palmeiro) that a vote for them would be wasted and so voted for three of the other five.

How could anyone vote for Palmeiro but not Bonds or Clemens? I'm having a hard time seeing that, so a ballot would have to list all three.

57. JRVJ Posted: December 05, 2022 at 11:01 AM (#6108005)

54,

The Hall would much rather leave it to the various voting bodies to hammer out.

That's not true, though, because they constantly put their finger on the scale. Just this year, they decreased the number of possible candidates the committee could vote for from 4 to 3 (which as demostrated by Tango and Szymborski, decreased the chance to elect anyone) and in naming publicly anti-PED user committee members (e.g., Frank THomas).

58. .

Posted: December 05, 2022 at 11:04 AM (#6108007)

The anti-anti-roiders have spent almost a generation now pretending that their opposition is only a single, niche faction of the grizzled and grouchy. And agitating, often profusely, for that perspective.

It never was and it still isn't and now it's pretty clear it won't ever be. Significant efforts were made to explain this.

The mainstream ethical voice of the sport is still definitively, unapologetically anti-roid. And rightly so.

59. SoSH U at work Posted: December 05, 2022 at 11:07 AM (#6108008)

That's not true, though, because they constantly put their finger on the scale. Just this year, they decreased the number of possible candidates the committee could vote for from 4 to 3 (which as demostrated by Tango and Szymborski, decreased the chance to elect anyone*)

They've done that throughout the years, making it harder/easier for the committees to operate depending on how the committees are operating (say, electing no one vs. electing Harold Baines).

and in naming publicly anti-PED user committee members (e.g., Frank THomas).

Who sits side-by-side with PED supporters Neal and Slasser on the committee.

* By the way, we didn't need Szym and Tango's help for that.

60. SoSH U at work Posted: December 05, 2022 at 11:12 AM (#6108009)

He got more votes than Murphy or Mattingly.

OK, but he got on a ballot, unlike the player in the post you were quoting or Grich, who has never had the privilege of being overlooked by an entirely different group of voters.

61. The Duke Posted: December 05, 2022 at 11:20 AM (#6108010)

56. It's a big assumption that people used all three of their votes. I could definitely see someone thinking McGriff is the guy and not using your other votes. We just saw a Rolen-only vote on the tracker. Not a stretch to think one or more vets voters would choose this path. Murphy, Belle and Mattingly are not compelling so if you are against the "bad " guys it's easy to see just one vote.

The 16-16 is very interesting because in years past I believed it was secret ballot. Maybe not anymore ? McGriff wins by acclamation and then a secret vote for the rest ? Hard to know. I will say that McGriff getting 16 is a more satisfying answer. Guys just sneaking in with 12 or just missing with 11 was less good. It would be nice if Dick Allen could go in with 16.

62. SoSH U at work Posted: December 05, 2022 at 11:26 AM (#6108011)

The 16-16 is very interesting because in years past I believed it was secret ballot.

It still is, but they've always announced both the committee members and the number of votes each player gets. If it's unanimous, then everyone knows.

And in the past, at least, they didn't want voters revealing who they selected. They allowed Verducci to break protocol when ol' Marv, through his mouthpiece Murray, claimed Verducci spearheaded the anti-Miller campaign.

63. The Duke Posted: December 05, 2022 at 11:38 AM (#6108013)

If it's still secret then there must be a lot of table talk to get a unanimous verdict. :)

64. SoSH U at work Posted: December 05, 2022 at 11:45 AM (#6108015)

If it's still secret then there must be a lot of table talk to get a unanimous verdict. :)

Oh, I don't know if they've ever been secret from one another, or they acted more like a committee that haggled over each candidate. Obviously, the Baines mistake was chalked up to TLR's lobbying, but I don't know how true that was* or, if true, whether it was done informally (leaning on each other in one-on-ones) or in a large group setting.

* As awful Baines' election was, the truth is he spent longer on the writer's ballot than anyone else save fellow inductee Smith, and the committee has historically taken its cues from the BBWAA.

65. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: December 05, 2022 at 11:48 AM (#6108016)

The mainstream ethical voice of the sport is still definitively, unapologetically anti-roid. And rightly so.

Bonds and Clemens got 65-66% of the vote in their final year on the ballot. I think it's more accurate to say that the "voice of the sport" is split on this topic. It's only a small minority that doesn't care about PEDs at all, and I don't think anyone here would claim differently. But a sizeable portion of the electorate was willing to look past the issue from a HOF standpoint for the top candidates.

66. Booey Posted: December 05, 2022 at 11:50 AM (#6108018)

#50 - What I meant was, Murphy and Mattingly were some of the highest vote getters despite being some of the least deserving players on the ballot, simply because they're likable. Schilling - with no PED ties - got 1 fewer vote than Mattingly and only 1 more than Murphy despite a VASTLY superior HOF case, simply because people don't like him.

The character clause is listed in the rules as just one criteria to consider amongst many. But for many voters it seems to have morphed into THE MOST IMPORTANT CRITERION THAT OUTWEIGHS ALL OTHERS COMBINED!!! And I personally think the credibility of the Hall is suffering for that, especially considering the character clause was virtually ignored entirely for the first 70 years of the Hall's existence.

67. The Duke Posted: December 05, 2022 at 12:08 PM (#6108021)

Math question. If you assume McGriff had to compete against a bunch of roided up guys who ended up with inflated stats does that necessarily mean by the math that if you could correct for roids that his stats like WAR and OPS+ would, by definition, be better ? In other words, the WAR that would go away from Bonds, Palmeiro, A-Rod ends up accruing back to him in some way ? How much impact would that have ? Is there any way to spitball the number ?

68. JRVJ Posted: December 05, 2022 at 12:11 PM (#6108022)

59, so you agree with me.

Good.

69. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: December 05, 2022 at 12:32 PM (#6108025)

If you assume McGriff had to compete against a bunch of roided up guys who ended up with inflated stats does that necessarily mean by the math that if you could correct for roids that his stats like WAR and OPS+ would, by definition, be better ?

Yes.

How much impact would that have ? Is there any way to spitball the number ?

I don't think there's any way to do so. But I think purportedly "clean" guys on the borderline like McGriff should get a bit of extra credit if you're penalizing the suspected PED users. Otherwise that era will wind up underrepresented in the Hall.

70. DL from MN Posted: December 05, 2022 at 12:36 PM (#6108029)

493 home runs, even if a lot of that came in the wackyball era, is still very impressive.

Plus 10 more in the postseason. He's not a terrible choice, he's just not first in line, or 10th in line, or even 50th in line. McGriff is a better choice than Belle, Murphy, or Mattingly so at least the committee picked the best non-controversial player.

71. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: December 05, 2022 at 01:04 PM (#6108046)

McGriff is a better choice than Belle, Murphy, or Mattingly so at least the committee picked the best non-controversial player.

Picture the reaction of someone in the '90s being told that Albert Belle would someday be in the "non-controversial" category on a Hall of Fame ballot.

72. SoSH U at work Posted: December 05, 2022 at 01:05 PM (#6108047)

59, so you agree with me.

Good.

I guess, but I'm not sure what your point was then it relation to my original comment. They haven't, at least effectively, done that here. They haven't taken a position. They've given no guidance. And while they did appoint anti-roid guy Thomas to the committee, they also appointed two writers who did vote for Clemens and Bonds.

If they're trying to influence things, they could be doing a much better job of it.

73. reech Posted: December 05, 2022 at 01:08 PM (#6108048)

Clearly, for better or worse, the line has been drawn for PED (or alleged )users.

74. John Northey Posted: December 05, 2022 at 01:44 PM (#6108057)

I always find the McGwire McGriff comparison intersting...
Up to age 30... (1986-1994)
McGriff: 285/389/541 153 OPS+ 262 HR 710 RBI - 2 time All-Star, 7 times got MVP votes
McGwire: 250/362/507 143 OPPS+ 238 HR 657 RBI - 6 time All-Star, 5 times got MVP votes

Age 31 to end... (1995 until end)
McGriff: 284/367/482 119 OPS+ 231 HR 840 RBI - 3 time All-Star, 1 time got MVP votes
McGwire: 278/430/683 183 OPS+ 345 HR 757 RBI - 6 time All-Star, 5 times got MVP votes

Interesting to look at - clearly McGwire got off to great starts vs McGriff but couldn't hold it, which helps explain his PED use as well since those are supposed to help you get through a season. But clearly in the early part of their careers McGriff was the better player despite the big ASG spread, and clearly McGwire was insane with PEDs in the later part (when decline is supposed to happen post 30). McGriff declined a bit more than he should've it seems post 30 while his most visible comparable did the opposite. I'm guessing if McGriff had played for Tony LaRussa and roided up like his players did then he'd have cleared 600 HR.

75. Booey Posted: December 05, 2022 at 01:56 PM (#6108064)

#74 - Except that according to McGwire's own confession, he was using PED's for the first half of his career too, so I'm not sure what conclusions we can make about his post 1994 improvement. Did he start taking more 'roids? Better 'roids?

76. alilisd Posted: December 05, 2022 at 02:04 PM (#6108067)

What's the point of this committee? McGriff simply didn't impress nearly enough people that he was a hall of famer. But he gets unanimous support while Bonds, Clemens and Schilling get stiffed. And half a career that's worth it Mattingly is next? Doing a decent job managing some crap Marlins teams makes up for loss of power over the last half of his career? Um, okay. I wasn't sure exactly what the job of this committee was.
I guess a previous poster was right, it's to elect marginally qualified candidates who had nice stories.

The job of the committee is likely multi-purpose, but a big part of it is to make sure there is someone to induct so that the HOF and Cooperstown get a big influx of cash next summer.

77. alilisd Posted: December 05, 2022 at 02:06 PM (#6108068)

So I guess McGriff goes in as a Brave ?

Should be a Jay on performance.

78. alilisd Posted: December 05, 2022 at 02:18 PM (#6108071)

Mattingly is getting traction because he's beginning to be seen as a baseball lifer (like Torre). If he gets in it will be on the basis of all his accomplishments - it's not unreasonable.

A) Mattingly is not gaining any traction. He received more votes on this ballot than he did on the prior Modern Era ballot, but it's not even a given he'll be on the next one.

B) No, there's no "lifer" category. Torre was elected as a manager. The Modern Era Committee even differentiates between committees for players and for managers on the HOF's website.

79. alilisd Posted: December 05, 2022 at 02:24 PM (#6108074)

McGwire doesn't have 2000 hits which has always been a big dividing line for the Hall. He's slightly below average for a 1B on JAWS and he quit early. He missed two seasons in his prime which really hurt. Putting aside the PEDs he's better hitter and power hitter than McGriff but you have to think they are a lot closer on a level playing field. Neither did well with the writers. McGwire got a peak of 23% and McGriff got 39

A lot of voters ok with PEDs didn't vote for McGwire to get in. I think the voters thought they were both borderline

Oh bullshit! A guy with 583 HR, led the league 4 times, set the MLB single season record and was the first person ever to hit 70 HR, has above average black ink, and is a dead on average HOF 1B by JAWS (McGriff falls well short on both career and peak) is not "borderline" by any possible definition. McGwire's failure to be elected was entirely related to PED issues amongst the electorate.

80. alilisd Posted: December 05, 2022 at 02:34 PM (#6108076)

Mattingly and Murphy were the biggest stars of the 80s.

Mike Schmidt, Cal Ripken, Robin Yount, George Brett, Wade Boggs, and Rickey! would like to have a word with you. And that's just position players, Clemens is a little pissed off, too ;-)

81. Buck Coats Posted: December 05, 2022 at 02:38 PM (#6108077)

#74 - Except that according to McGwire's own confession, he was using PED's for the first half of his career too, so I'm not sure what conclusions we can make about his post 1994 improvement. Did he start taking more 'roids? Better 'roids?

Maybe that's when McGriff stopped taking 'roids...

82. alilisd Posted: December 05, 2022 at 02:47 PM (#6108080)

McGriff being in is...fine. He neither raises nor lowers the bar for the HOF. Neither his absence, nor presence, in the Hall is a matter to outrage anybody. His top 10 comps include McCovey, Stargell, Bagwell, and Billy Williams. They also include Konerko, Delgado, Giambi, and Sheffield. He is somewhere in the middle of all that.

If he's now considered to be part of the measure on where to place the bar, he certainly helps to lower it. His election brings into consideration guys like Teixeira and Norm Cash, his two closest by JAWS, with Will Clark, Olerud and Hernandez above him. If we consider McGriff to be clearing the bar, then does further consideration need to be given to Mattingly and Delgado, who are just behind him but ahead of Hodges, who just went in. I don't think the Era Committees work like this, but his election does make him part of the consideration of where to place the bar if a voter considers the composition of the actual HOF in how they vote.

As to his comps, James himself said that a similarity score of less than 900 is essentially meaningless, and McGriff has no comps at 900 or above so that's a pretty worthless list.

83. The Duke Posted: December 05, 2022 at 02:50 PM (#6108082)

78

A). He did better on a tougher ballot to accumulate votes. He got 8 of the final 32 final available votes some of which might not have been cast. He beat Bonds, Clemens. And schilling which is far better competition than he had ever had on prior ballots. It's almost indisputable that he did "better". He's been left for dead on prior ballots.

B) there is no lifer category but the Hall does not preclude looking at their playing contributions. I doubt anyone would agree with your position. Kaat also got in under the informal lifer category. Even he thinks so. But it is true there is no formal category

79. It's not bullshit. The list of modern players in the Hall with less than 2000 hits that aren't catchers, vets selections or some other special category is vanishingly small. The writers are very stingy. Scores of writers who voted for PED guys did not vote for McGwire so it must be that he wasn't deemed qualified - what else could it be? How else do Bonds and Clemens get in the 60s, manny at 29, a-rod in the 30s, Ortiz gets in and McGwire get in the low 20s? It's not my opinion - just my explanation for the facts. Him not getting in was partially PEDs and his stats and the rest was being viewed as borderlines. I'm open to another explanation

84. alilisd Posted: December 05, 2022 at 03:09 PM (#6108095)

But clearly in the early part of their careers McGriff was the better player despite the big ASG spread, and clearly McGwire was insane with PEDs in the later part (when decline is supposed to happen post 30).

I don't think that's clear at all. McGriff had a very linear career/peak. His first full season through 1994 were his best seasons, and he then had a decline with only one really good season, 1999, after that. McGwire was a bit more up and down, for whatever reason. Great rookie year, two good seasons, another great season, an inexplicably bad season, and then his best season to date in 1992 followed by two injury plagued seasons. It all depends on where you put the cutoff or measuring performance. McGwire, for example, had 3 WAR in only 279 PA's in 1993-94 with an OPS+ of 171. McGriff had 1118 PA's in those two seasons. On a per PA basis, McGwire would have put up 12 WAR in equal playing time to McGriff in that span, a big chunk of the OPS+ difference goes away, and McGwire moves in front on HR and at least closes the gap on RBI. Keep in mind there's a difference of 708 PA's between the two at age 30.

85. Karl from NY Posted: December 05, 2022 at 03:17 PM (#6108099)

For McGwire's statistical case: a giant amount of his value came from walks. 1317 walks to 1626 hits! And that doesn't have anything to do with PEDs.

We statheads know to look at that, but a committee of geriatric baseball-talkers won't ever notice or care.

86. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: December 05, 2022 at 03:20 PM (#6108100)

Scores of writers who voted for PED guys did not vote for McGwire so it must be that he wasn't deemed qualified - what else could it be?

Several things. There's the "Hall of Famer before using steroids" option, which applies to Bonds/Clemens but not McGwire. There's the "PED discount" option, which could easily push McGwire below the line while keeping Bonds and Clemens above it. And there's also the BBWAA purge of voters who were no longer active baseball writers, which didn't hit until 2015 (McGwire's second-to-last year on the ballot), at which point the ballot was so crowded and he had so little time that there was no point in voting for him. Manny and A-Rod are being voted on by a very different electorate and are on a much less crowded ballot (and still aren't making much progress beyond McGwire's highest total).

As far as Ortiz goes, the PED issues did not stick to him for whatever reason. If they had, he wouldn't have gotten in either.

87. SoSH U at work Posted: December 05, 2022 at 03:25 PM (#6108103)

Scores of writers who voted for PED guys did not vote for McGwire so it must be that he wasn't deemed qualified - what else could it be?

Several things.

Also, there's the possibility of known without a doubt (McGwire) and suspected but not proven (Bonds/Clemens). There's also probably some guys voting for the two best PED guys and then spreading the rest of the ballot to people with a chance of getting elected. Then, if and when Bonds/Clemens got in, they'd move down the roid list.

There are a whole lot of reasons why someone would vote BB/RC and not MM or SS or RP.

But a MGwire in a world that didn't give a rat's ass about steroids at all would have been in the Hall before Barry and company hit the ballot, sub-2,000 hits be damned.

88. Booey Posted: December 05, 2022 at 03:36 PM (#6108107)

#83 - Yes, it's uncommon for the writers to elect a non catcher with less than 2000 hits. But you know what's even more uncommon? Players who hit 583 homeruns in 6187 at bats, AVERAGE 61 homers over a 4 season span, hit 70 and 65 homers in back to back seasons, and put up a 192 OPS+ (.289/.442/.706) over a span of 3290 plate appearances (1995-2000).

Mac was a historically great HR hitter, and without PED issues he would've gone first ballot (even debuting with Ripken and Gwynn).

89. Snowboy Posted: December 05, 2022 at 03:41 PM (#6108110)

Before I read anymore of this thread...
[49] salvo...very cool story, thanks for sharing.

90. alilisd Posted: December 05, 2022 at 03:58 PM (#6108120)

B) there is no lifer category but the Hall does not preclude looking at their playing contributions. I doubt anyone would agree with your position.

Look on the HOF website and you'll see there is a Modern Era Player's Committe and a separate one for other categories such as Manager, Umpire, etc. Look at B-R and you'll see they say Torre was elected as a manager. If the HOF itself and B-R agree with me, I don't care who else doesn't.

79. It's not bullshit.

It's complete bullshit. With no PED controversy there's is no way McGwire doesn't get elected easily. With 583 career HR, 4 times leading the league, an iconic 1998 followed by an epic 1999. He's 5th in career HR when he retires, now at 11th the only eligible players not to be elected with more HR than him are Bonds, A-Rod, and Sosa. He was hugely popular with both fans and writers (12 AS selections, 7 down ballot MVP finishes plus 3 top 5 finishes, and a ROY). He was considered a good guy prior to PED disclosures/discoveries! He won the Lou Gehrig award for crying out loud. There is literally nothing him other than PED taint keeping him out of the HOF.

How else do Bonds and Clemens get in the 60s, manny at 29, a-rod in the 30s, Ortiz gets in and McGwire get in the low 20s? It's not my opinion - just my explanation for the facts.

Bonds and Clemens are widely considered the greatest position player and greatest pitcher of all time if you don't have a PED issue. That's quite clearly a huge difference between them and McGwire, which readily explains the difference in support. You can look at it as the difference between a slam dunk, 1st ballot HOF and a guy who is going to be elected but may have to spend a year or three on the ballot.

Manny debuted the year after McGwire fell off. McGwire debuted at 23.5%, Many at 23.8%, no difference. The voting rolls were purged in 2015 of a lot of older writers who were not willing to vote for PED guys, too late to help McGwire, but in plenty of time to help Manny's voting pattern look better superficially. McGwire actually received 18 more raw votes than Ramirez in year one. McGwire's percentage went down over time, but the ballot also became much more crowded as well. That's what drove his voting results down. Ramirez has moved up slightly by percentage over time, but he still hasn't received as many raw votes as McGwire did in his first year. Basically he's facing a more open electorate, and a more open ballot, than McGwire. Ortiz does not have any sort of PED issue that I'm aware of. The commissioner himself went to the trouble to publicly state Ortiz did not deserve to be looked at as a PED user.

91. The Duke Posted: December 05, 2022 at 04:12 PM (#6108123)

88. But he wouldn't have had those stats without PEDs. He doesn't have a PED "issue" he used PEDs which enhanced his performance. In a world without the PED issue, he probably looks a lot like McGriff and McGriff was borderline.

86. Sure, those are all valid but we aren't talking about a guy who got 50% and his buddy got 55%. McGwire got a full 40% less. Now all those reasons could explain a certain percentage of that - seems perfectly reasonable. But that something like 150-200 voters who were ok with Bonds and Clemens but not McGwire. Even manny is passing him comfortably as will Arod.

I could see 20-25% for those issues plus tight ballots. So maybe that gets him into the high 40s, low 50s.

He's never going in now, that's for sure

92. SoSH U at work Posted: December 05, 2022 at 04:27 PM (#6108127)

88. But he wouldn't have had those stats without PEDs.

That's an entirely different argument.

86. Sure, those are all valid but we aren't talking about a guy who got 50% and his buddy got 55%. McGwire got a full 40% less. Now all those reasons could explain a certain percentage of that - seems perfectly reasonable. But that something like 150-200 voters who were ok with Bonds and Clemens but not McGwire. Even manny is passing him comfortably as will Arod.

You can't read that much into those trends. McGwire got no traction, then he slipped as voters abandoned his hopeless cause in the flood of crowded ballots. Then there was the purge (ongoing), which helped CLemens and Bonds move from lower support up to where they peaked (and correspondingly helped Manny and Sheff and other lesser figures).

The gap when Bonds/Clemens debuted, the most relevant relationship was only 20 percentage points, not 40.

McGwire in a world where no one cares about PEDs sails into the Hall, as most everyone here believes. McGwire in a world without PEDs? Well, that's unknowable. It's certainly possible he doesn't put up Hall-worthy numbers without them, for one reason or another.

93. DL from MN Posted: December 05, 2022 at 04:45 PM (#6108133)

I think McGwire's big sin is admitting he used PEDs and apologizing. If you want to get elected you have to lie about it and say you never touched the stuff. Honesty does not pay in Hall of Fame voting.

94. Booey Posted: December 05, 2022 at 04:57 PM (#6108137)

#93 - That approach hasn't worked either (see Clemens and Sosa). Once the voters decide you're guilty, then you're screwed and nothing you can do matters.

95. SoSH U at work Posted: December 05, 2022 at 05:00 PM (#6108138)

I think McGwire's big sin is admitting he used PEDs and apologizing. If you want to get elected you have to lie about it and say you never touched the stuff.

He didn't admit it until he was on the ballot for several years. The silent treatment didn't work either.

Other than being David Ortiz, whose tenuous association was forgiven* while Sammy Sosa's identical ties were proof, there has been no real path to election for those convicted in the court of public opinion.

* It no doubt also helped that his brush with roids came at the very beginning of his career, allowing him time to change the narrative in a way that wasn't available to Bonds, Clemens, etc.

96. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: December 05, 2022 at 05:55 PM (#6108145)

For McGwire's statistical case: a giant amount of his value came from walks. 1317 walks to 1626 hits! And that doesn't have anything to do with PEDs.

He always had good plate discipline, but I doubt Mac walks as much if he's a less prodigious a HR hitter. He had by far the most walks of his career during his 70 HR season.

97. The Duke Posted: December 05, 2022 at 06:15 PM (#6108147)

McGwire was on the todays game ballot in 2016 and his only competition on the players side was Belle, will Clark, baines and hershiser. There were a few managers and execs on the ballot. He got less than 5 votes so he couldn't get any traction with the vets either

98. Howie Menckel Posted: December 05, 2022 at 06:19 PM (#6108148)

There's the "Hall of Famer before using steroids" option, which applies to Bonds/Clemens but not McGwire.

is this it, really?

now, someone can take issue with that line of thought - but that's what many writers think. we know this, because they have said so in their columns.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Sunday, December 04, 2022

McGriff elected unanimously to Hall on Contemporary Era ballot

Reader Comments and Retorts

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

Hot Topics