Of course.

I was surprised that Machado finished ahead of Arenado. But Judge/Ohtani got all the first and second place votes 28 for Judge, just two for Ohtani.

Goldy still needs a gradual end of career to get to hof/hom territory, but at 58 or so war right now, and locked in for two more years 65 at age 36 seems very probable.

You can tell how much people don't trust defensive war, as Edman didn't get one single vote for MVP despite finishing 8th in bWar in the nl. (19 people received votes in the nl) (although to be fair, you don't expect the hr champion to only get a single ninth place vote either)

Goldy still needs a gradual end of career to get to hof/hom territory, but at 58 or so war right now, and locked in for two more years 65 at age 36 seems very probable.

He's a first baseman with just the one MVP and no rings (heck, Goldschmidt's never even played in a World Series), so he's prolly gonna need 70+ WAR to be taken seriously. (His list of similar batters practically scream, "Tell me you're in the Hall of Very Good without telling me you're in the Hall of Very Good".)

He's a first baseman with just the one MVP and no rings (heck, Goldschmidt's never even played in a World Series), so he's prolly gonna need 70+ WAR to be taken seriously. (His list of similar batters practically scream, "Tell me you're in the Hall of Very Good without telling me you're in the Hall of Very Good".)

So you are saying Eddie Murray (0 MVP, 68 war, 1 ring) or Willie McCovey (65 war, 0 rings, 1mvp) As of right now I fully agree about the his list of similar batters, my comment was him reaching 65 war. Similar by age does include McGriff(a guy who's always going to be on the short list of guys who probably deserves to go in) Votto (a guy who is going in pretty easily) but also a bunch of others (Berkman, Adrian Gonzalez, Giambi etc who pretty much had their career end at 37 or so) But of course, with the Votto exception, every single player on his similar through 34 year list ended up with fewer career war than Goldschmidt already has, including McGriff. I think he's much better off than anyone on his list at age 34.

He does have two 2nds and a 3rd in MVP finishes so voters are used to thinking of him as "among the best." I think he just moved into the top 25 in MVP shares. Of course at the moment he looks none too flash but he's still on just 6900 PA. It will be something of a tautology ... if he only gets the two years that CFB mentions then yeah, he's still short of 400 HRs, 1250 RBI, 2100 hits. Get to about 9000 PA and he's probably in. For 2020-22, he's averaged 7 WAR per 650 PA and hit that 650 PA mark in the last 2 seasons so there's no reason to think he'll be tailing off dramatically (but you never know, could follow the Pujols/Miggy path).

I'm not sure rings matter very much for the HoF. They don't hurt of course and multiple good postseasons can boost a case but I'm not sure a lack of rings really hurts.** Edgar, Mussina, Vlad, Hoffman, Thome, Bagwell, Thomas*** never won one.

** Of course voters who just don't want to vote for a guy will cook up any number of reasons not to so I won't be shocked if it's been cited a few times. But if it's not the lack of rings it will be the lack of good postseasons or MVPs or AS games or time missed to injury or played for too many teams or ....

*** I assume he got one from the 2005 Sox but it's hardly high on his list of career achievements.

McGriff will be elected this year. His eventual election was cinched the moment Baines went in, and the "modern era" ballot recently released could hardly have been better designed for the express purpose of getting McGriff elected.

he looks none too flash but he's still on just 6900 PA.

That is what I miss about having Pi, the ability to easily check what pa limit is normal for a hofer, simple questions like that, which now require me to just give up on. (My wife has offered to get me a PI for our wedding present, and I might take her up on that... I don't think it's worth the money for what I use it for, but it's worth having)

My comment was 65 war for a guy with roughly 7200 pa and hopefully a gradual decline phase, since he doesn't appear to be a lumbering player like some other first baseman who have made it this far in their careers, there is hope he can gradually fade into retirement, and with a free agent contract at age 36 he might be able to grab a 3 year deal giving him time to get the counting numbers up. (obviously if his decline is more gradual than expected then he hits a ton of decent counting numbers... i.e. I'm predicting him going from 6.1/7.8 to 4.0 to 3.0 as a safe bet... if he does better say 6.0/5.0/4.0/3.0 that puts him much better and not even an extreme prediction to be honest. Still not going to have the career numbers, that puts him at about 410 hr, 2400 hits, so it's overall value that will have to be the sell and fortunately war likes his secondary numbers enough throughout his career---note that is an issue with his similar scores though, most of them are not good defenders, which partially explained why their career ended so soon)

McGriff will be elected this year. His eventual election was cinched the moment Baines went in, and the "modern era" ballot recently released could hardly have been better designed for the express purpose of getting McGriff elected.

I kinda hope that is true, I personally don't think he's worthy, but considering the Baines and Rice admissions to the hall, it doesn't bother me if a legit borderline gets in. Plus for some reason I have always liked the guy. He wouldn't get my vote, but I'm not gnashing my teeth if he gets in.

I'd be interested in seeing where this years performance puts Goldy on a five year Zips projection. I used to think he would go in as A D-back and I still think he should but he's making a case for wearing a Cardinals hat and I'm guessing we might see an extension this winter for 2-3 more years beyond the end of his current contract. They did that with Carpenter and Arenado may have asked them to make that happen, too.

I'd be interested in seeing where this years performance puts Goldy on a five year Zips projection. I used to think he would go in as A D-back and I still think he should but he's making a case for wearing a Cardinals hat and I'm guessing we might see an extension this winter for 2-3 more years beyond the end of his current contract. They did that with Carpenter and Arenado may have asked them to make that happen, too.

Agree, I think Goldy has the body type that ages well, but I would have also said the same thing about Votto two years ago. I'm pretty confident both the Cardinals and Goldy are going to wait until at least August of next year before either side thinks discussing extension. Unless there is a way to restructure the deal to Goldy's favor while clearing up some payroll to sign someone else. (not really seeing it though, an MVP season guy doesn't think he's not going to be worth what he's already being paid going forward)

I think some of you are underrating Goldschmidt a bit. IMO he's a near lock for the HOF. Barring a career ending injury this offseason, he's going to pass 60 WAR easily, and he looks likely to finish with a better career than Todd Helton (61.8 WAR) and Joey Votto (64.3), two modern 1B that will probably get elected by the BBWAA. In fact, Goldy looks pretty similar to Votto already; he just needs to pad the service time a little bit more:

JV - 8505 PA, 2093 H, 1145 R, 342 HR, 1106 RBI, .297/.412/.513 (145 OPS+), 64.3 WAR/38.3 WAA, All Star (x6), GG (x1), Silver Slugger (x0), Top 10 MVP finishes (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 6th, 7th)
PG - 6951 PA, 1750 H, 1045 R, 315 HR, 1042 RBI, .295/.391/.527 (145 OPS+), 58.5 WAR/37.0 WAA, All Star (x7), GG (x4), Silver Slugger (x5), Top 10 MVP finishes (1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 6th)

It's not the 1990's/2000's anymore; perennial 30 HR players who finish with a .290-.300 avg are going to start looking really good again (see also Goldy's twin, Freddie Freeman).

I think some of you are underrating Goldschmidt a bit. IMO he's a near lock for the HOF. Barring a career ending injury this offseason, he's going to pass 60 WAR easily, and he looks likely to finish with a better career than Todd Helton (61.8 WAR) and Joey Votto (64.3), two modern 1B that will probably get elected by the BBWAA. In fact, Goldy looks pretty similar to Votto already; he just needs to pad the service time a little bit more:

I think the term is cautiously optimistic, outside RMc, I don't think anyone here(this thread) thinks that Goldy is "iffy" for the most part. As for reasons you pointed out, for reasons I pointed out etc, he might end up being short of counting numbers, but he's got what Walt would call a pretty good prime (especially when you factor in the covid season) We are talking about a guy who has 9 complete seasons, one injury shorten season and one covid shorten season, who averages 5.5 war over a full season for his prime who just came off two excellent (three if you count the covid season) in a row. Nobody really expects him to bottom out or even have a severe dip next year, although there are indications he probably does need to take a few more days off during the season (something he acknowledge himself this season)

As it stands he might even crack the top ten first baseman of all time(Top five is a bit tougher and really does require him to reach at least 9000 pa.) Right now he's probably in the top 20 range(depending on who you call a first baseman) with a decent chance to move up. And pretty much every one ahead of him is in the hall or deserves (Palmiero as an example)

He's absolutely on the path to the hof, he's also, just as absolutely, hasn't cleared the borderline.

McGriff will be elected this year. His eventual election was cinched the moment Baines went in, and the "modern era" ballot recently released could hardly have been better designed for the express purpose of getting McGriff elected.

um, you might have to brace yourself for when this vote is announced.

and I say this as someone who still gives McGriff a spot on my 15-slot HOM ballot, when few other voters do.....

McGriff will be elected this year. His eventual election was cinched the moment Baines went in, and the "modern era" ballot recently released could hardly have been better designed for the express purpose of getting McGriff elected.

Yeah, McGriff will probably be elected. But only because there is little awareness of the circumstantial evidence concerning possible PED use:

The Problem with Fred McGriff and the Hall of Fame

I think the current ballot was designed to put Schilling in to be honest. I don't see anyone else on the ballot sniffing the hof. Including McGriff. Three votes, at least two great players who are roiders and requiring no more than 4 no'. Schilling is the only clear worthy hofer on the ballot who doesn't have a roid taint. McGriff is an iffy person and obviously Bonds, Clemens and Palmiero have the opposite issue. His issues with the press is mitigated by the the fact that the press isn't voting for him, and not hurt by the fact that most ball players support his politics if not his attitude, and generally don't like the press.

Schilling is getting in on this ballot, the more I think about it.

I think Schilling and McGriff both go in. They both had good support from the BBWAA without the roids taint*, and that's generally the best indicator of success with the Vets committee. Hell, even terrible selection Baines spent longer on the ballot than any of his fellow candidates other than co-inductee Smith.

*Freakshow's high regard with the baseballing community notwithstanding.

I just think McGriff is too borderline to get enough votes, again it takes only four people not voting for him for him to miss it. I fully expect that the three or so experts/non writers will vote Bonds/Clemens/Schilling giving McGriff no margin for error with the hof players and execs. If any player of the 8 votes for Bonds, they are also going to vote for Clemens (or other way around). That leaves just one spot on their ballot and Schilling is more worthy than McGriff, it would require every player who does vote for Bonds/Clemens to also vote McGriff. I just do not see that happening, it only takes two player voters to probably keep McGriff out. Maybe just one.

Basically if anybody votes for Bonds, they are also voting for Clemens. They have a third vote, among the people who would vote for Bonds or Clemens, who do you think they would vote for first, McGriff or Schilling? If you think Bonds and Clemens are getting less than two votes each, then yes McGriff goes in. If you think they get four votes, then there is no chance that McGriff goes in.

They've definitely cleared a path for McGriff. And I hope he gets through but my sense is that people who abhor the PED users won't separately reward those who, in theory, would have looked much better had their competitors not cheated. I'm anti-PED and part of that means supporting guys who have had their comps crushed.

outside RMc, I don't think anyone here(this thread) thinks that Goldy is "iffy" for the most part

I don't really think Goldy is "iffy", especially once he passes RMc's Magic HOF WAR Barrier (tm) of 62. But I still think he's gonna have to wait. So will Votto.

Basically if anybody votes for Bonds, they are also voting for Clemens. They have a third vote,

That's actually a really good point.

Good choices by the writers. Not surprised that Judge ran away with it in the AL.

Alcantara actually led the NL in bWAR, but like Zack Wheeler last season he got very little MVP support. To be fair, Alcantara's fWAR was significantly lower (5.7 vs. 8.0). Goldy seems like a good choice and while I would have had Machado 3rd or 4th, he had an excellent season.

My theory on the PED guys is that they wanted them on and off the ballot quickly so they can focus on the guys they really want to put in. But maybe they just want them to go in and be done with it. It seems awfully odd there wasn't more of a waiting period

@14: Here is the "evidence" offered by that blog post:

In his late prime, from ages 27-30, his OPS+ was 153; a normal sort of decline set in and from ages 31-34 his OPS+ was 114; he then reversed course and from ages 35-38 his OPS+ was 130. How common is that? We’re not just talking about a down season or two, or coming back from injury; McGriff was a full-time regular in all these years. He established a new, lower performance level in his early 30’s. Then in his mid-to-late 30’s he raised his OPS+ by 16 points!

I mean.... c'mon.

as I don't see a distinct Cy Young winners thread, I will post here:

Justin Verlander's unanimous award now gives him more Cy Young votes than 4-time winners Steve Carlton and even Greg Maddux (!). His 3 wins plus 3 runner-ups have him at 3rd all time in most award shares, trailing only Clemens and the Big Unit.

HOF, check!

Cardinal fans are picking about Goold's ballot, mostly because he voted Machado second and Arenado third instead of the other way around. One fan's question was when was the last time someone won both the GG and SS and finished lower in the mvp to a guy playing the same position.

Goold response was pretty good. "Joey Votto, 2010 look it up".


Of course I'm pretty sure every metric I looked at this year said that Machado was the better defender than Arenado this year, by a small amount. The other thing he gets criticism for was not including any pitchers on his ballot, including Alcantara, I find that a lot more disappointing, he mentioned he had him in the 5-12 grouping, but ended up going with his final ballot.

Justin Verlander's unanimous award now gives him more Cy Young votes than 4-time winners Steve Carlton and even Greg Maddux (!). His 3 wins plus 3 runner-ups have him at 3rd all time in most award shares, trailing only Clemens and the Big Unit.

Gerrit Cole's 9th place vote didn't move the needle enough for him to pass Wainwright with the distinction of most Cy Young shares without winning one. Waino's last year is supposedly next year so Cole has time to either pass him or win one outright. Chris Sale is next in line and is young enough to potentially get a chance if he returns to form.

Good to see Daniel Bard get a vote...rarely do guys come back from the dreaded Steve Blass Disease!

Yankees and Cardinals both won MVP awards, including the Chalmers(1911-1914) and the league award (1922-1929) and the BBWAA award (1931 - present) The Yankees have the most awards with 23, the Cardinals are second with 21, and the Giants are third with 14. (To be fair though 1922-1923 was only an AL Award, NL didn't create theirs until 1924... Hornsby would have most likely won in 1922...but this is a post about the fact of the awards and not speculation... but I can still at least bring it up.) Rangers and Angels have 6 each to be the highest among the expansion teams. Indians have 3 to place them the lowest among original teams. (Yes, I got all this from the wikipedia page. Just was trying to see when they changed the voting in the Cy Young from 3 voters to 5 and ended up there next --- 2010 for the record)

hmm.. so the Dodgers have the most NL pennants, but fewer MVPs than STL or NY/SFG?

bb-ref didn't update the MVP on their home page, so it won't be until tomorrow that I have an idea of how high Machado and Arenado moves up to surpass anyone for more shares without winning. (Goldschmidt started the day at 2.34 76th all time, Arenado 2.03 99th all time, Machado 1.43 171 all time)

And just for fun, Trout was at 6.32, 5th all time. (Bonds 9.30, Musial 6.96, Pujols 6.91, Williams 6.43, Trout 6.32, Mays, Mantle, Aaron, Dimaggio, Gehrig, Arod)

hmm.. so the Dodgers have the most NL pennants, but fewer MVPs than STL or NY/SFG?

They pretty handedly walk away with the Cy Young, 12 winners for first place, second is Braves/Phils/Red Sox/Mets with 7 each.

And I forgot to include the Dodgers, I thought they had 13 MVP, when they were tied with the Giants at 14. My bad.

The Dodgers also have surprisingly few HOF'ers (meaning players who spent the important part of their careers with them).

Goldschmidt's future??? A couple of obvious comps post-34:

Votto: 1740 PA, 246/354/452, 73 HR, 209 RBI, 4.6 WAR, 2 Rfield
Bagwell: 1504 PA, 270/374/486, 120 OPS+, 69 HR, 208 RBI, 8.1 WAR, 12 Rfield
Helton: 2334 PA, 281/370/436, 105 OPS+, 59 HR, 290 RBI, 6.1 WAR, 18 Rfield
Vlad: 1233 PA, 295/332/457, 109 OPS+, 42 HR, 178 RBI, 2 WAR, DH

Vlad there mainly as an offensive comp. Vlad and Helton were clearly worse than Goldy for ages 32-34 but Votto and Bagwell were pretty close. Arguably Votto showed cracks at 34 but he had 8 WAR and a 2nd-place MVP at 33. Both Bagwell and Votto added about 350 hits although Votto would be closer to 450 if not for 2020. That's the sort of production that would leave Goldschmidt's stats borderline with about 8500 PA, 65 WAR, 2100 H, <400 HR, 1250 RBI. Helton's decline is hard to apply to anybody else given Coors but maybe the extra 100 H and RBI would help.

It's not the 1990's/2000's anymore; perennial 30 HR players who finish with a .290-.300 avg are going to start looking really good again (see also Goldy's twin, Freddie Freeman).

Of course 2 of those guys are already in, the other 2 have a pretty good shot and, other than Bagwell, at 34 they were all around where Goldschmidt is now. He looks a good bit like Billy Williams except he'll likely finish with 1500-2000 fewer PAs.

PG thru 34: 6900 PA, 295/391/527, 145 OPS+, 315 HR, 1042 RBI, 58.5 WAR, 37 WAA, -4 dWAR
BW thru 34: 8371 PA, 298/363/510, 137 OPS+, 356 HR, 1199 RBI, 57.9 WAR, 28 WAA, -12 dWAR (there's a 14 WAR gap in oWAR)

Williams added about 2100 PA, 6 WAR, 480 H and 70 HR. Remember though that even back in the day, they weren't that kind to guys with "short" careers and/or who came up shy of 400 HRs (without 3000 hits). Cepeda, Santo, Reggie Smith, Hodges, Murphy ... Snider had to wait a long time, Billy had to wait a few years. Modern voters will be more focused on WAR and peak/prime than those voters were, I'm just pointing out that even by "old" standards, Goldschmidt would probably have been borderline. On the other hand, if recent VC inductions have any influence on the BBWAA (I've never really thought so but you never know), then Goldschmidt should have a pretty easy time of it.

@23:

I mean.... c'mon.

If you know anything about player aging patterns, McGriff's late career is a huge red flag.

And then you can also jump to rookie of the year, where the Dodgers lap the field with 18, Braves and Yankees at second with 9 each.

The Dodgers career leaderboard isn't that impressive -- I mean some impressive names but not impressive numbers. Only 11 batters have made it to 6500 PA with the Dodgers and it's not particularly impressive -- Wheat, Reese, Gilliam, Davis, Russell, Hodges, Snider, Garvey, Furillo, Wills and Karros. Not exactly Ruth, Mantle, DiMaggio. Wheat is the hit leader and he was a long time ago ... one of only 3 guys to top 2000 hits (Reese, Davis). Wheat also leads in doubles, triples and TB; Snider in HR and RBI.

All those great pitchers but Sutton, Drysdale and hopefully soon Kershaw are the only guys with 200+ wins. Sutton and Drysdale are easily the innings leaders -- although as an old NL franchise you might expect them to have 1 or 2 guys with 5000 innings.

For such a successful franchise, they've not had many great careers and no Ruth, Mays, Aaron, Bonds, Musial and really no Seaver, Maddux, Clemens, Unit was even there for an extended period (although obviously Koufax could have been that). Their best position player ever was probably Robinson -- who was damn good but, as we all know, he had a short career. Koufax is their greatest pitcher with the same problem. Beyond those two it is mainly a story of good to HOVG to borderline HoF players, pretty much all squeezed into the last 75 years.

Even looking at their MVPs, 4 of those were pitchers, 3 were a C (Campy), a 2B (Robinson), a SS (Wills) ... then Bellinger, Gibson, Garvey, Camilli and Daubert (if we count that one). Mookie might already qualify as the 2nd greatest position player (Robinson) to ever don a Dodger uniform in for a big chunk of his prime.

(To be clear, most franchise 20th c pitching leader lists aren't hugely impressive in counting totals (200 wins is a lot) as pitchers have always tended to be moved around a good bit. But I think Sutton is the only 300-win or 3,000-K guy to spend a significant chunk of his prime there.)

The Dodgers career leaderboard isn't that impressive -- I mean some impressive names but not impressive numbers.

“Trade a player a year too early rather than a year too late.” — Branch Rickey.

Mookie might already qualify as the 2nd greatest position player (Robinson) to ever don a Dodger uniform in for a big chunk of his prime.

I would probably say Piazza. At least his best years were with the Dodgers.

“Trade a player a year too early rather than a year too late.” — Branch Rickey.

I was going to mention that as being part of the mindset built into Dodgers front office from the 40's to the 90's(and maybe ongoing), can't think of many aging veterans that they held onto regardless of their superstar status in their youth.

Goldschmidt is already 16th all time at 1B in my rankings, 170th overall all time. That's a pretty easy yes for me

If you know anything about player aging patterns, McGriff's late career is a huge red flag.

Oh it is not.

Aging patterns are just that -- patterns, trends, tendencies. It's not deterministic as anybody who knows anything about player aging patterns (or statistics) knows. Players have late career bumps all the time. Moreover, the link between PEDs and good aging is purely speculative. For every "LOL Bonds" there's a McGwire in severe decline at 36 and done at 37; Sosa in decline at 35, useless at 36.

The idea that you can deduce PED use from performace is moronic.

McGriff the batter is pretty similar to Billy Williams who had this OPS+ pattern starting at age 30: 142, 119, 148, 138, 172, 117, 131, 116, 98.

From 27-30, Stargell had an OPS+ of 139; from 31-34 it was 176. It dropped to 148 at 35 and 125 at 36 ... then 145, 158, 139 and still 129 in limited time at age 40.

Frank Thomas from age 30: 126, 125, 163, 94 (20 games), 119, 146, 156, 131, 140, 125 ... feel free to say this is a huge red flag indicating roid use by Thomas, but only if you do it to his face.

Winfield ages 32-40: 154, 118, 120, 116, 159, missed all of age 37, 122, 120, 138 at age 40

Kaline ages 29-37: 134, 143, 161, 176, 146, 116, 127, 144, 149

McCovey ages 30-39: 174, 209, 182, 149, 102, 162, 164, 129, 82, 132

McGriff ages 29-38: 144, 157, 119, 120, 106, 111, 142, 110, 144, 125

If you know anything about player aging patterns, McGriff's late career is a huge red flag.

MLB Expansion 1998 coincides with his bump up in performance

One other thing working against the idea of Crime Dog, Juice Guy, is the fact his body never really changed over the course of his career. Most of your other slugger types, suspected or known, put on significant bulk from their earlier days. McGriff didn't.

One other thing working against the idea of Crime Dog, Juice Guy, is the fact his body never really changed over the course of his career. Most of your other slugger types, suspected or known, put on significant bulk from their earlier days. McGriff didn't.

Tom Emanski's fielding drills kept him in trim shape.

#27 - Lots of guys put up ~80% of their career value in 2 seasons. Very few of them do it in 2 seasons 12 years apart.

Schilling is getting in on this ballot, the more I think about it.

I can see your logic, but I think it won't work out that way. The players won't want to be associated with Schilling's blowhardness any more than the writers did. Players tend to support those they played with/against and respected, but I don't remember Schilling really ever being talked about positively by other players. They won't care about the whole bloody-sock legend and all that, that's a writers thing. And players don't care about advanced stats like Schilling's great unearned-runs total, they're not going to look much beyond his low-ish win count.

The guy that will go in with the players' VC vote is going to be Mattingly. He's got the elder-statesman respect that will make people want to vote for him. Schilling doesn't.

Players tend to support those they played with/against and respected, but I don't remember Schilling really ever being talked about positively by other players.

No, until the noose talk, he was less popular with his peers than the writers.

"He's a horse every fifth day and a horse's ass the other four." Former Phils GM Ed Wade.

McGriff ages 29-38: 144, 157, 119, 120, 106, 111, 142, 110, 144, 125

Not unusual at all. From BBref:

Age       G    PA OPS+
22        3     5    8
23      107   356  130
24      154   623  157
25      161   680  165
26      153   658  153
27      153   642  147
28      152   632  165
29      151   640  144
29       83   349  127
29       68   291  165
30      113   478  157
31      144   604  119
32      159   691  120
33      152   641  106
34      151   649  111
35      144   620  142
36      158   664  110
37      146   586  144
37       97   385  144
37       49   201  145
38      146   595  125
39       86   329   99
40       27    81   53

Great hitter has some down years in his early 30s due to injuries and not taking care of himself, then gets healthy for a couple of years, then hits the wall as 40 nears.

I originally tried to find an argument that the op was trying to point out about how McGriff was unusual, and I just couldn't see it. Consistent with normal fluctuations isn't a sign of an unusual aging pattern. As pa goes down, you assume either some type of platooning or injury is taking place, even if it's not normal lefty/righty platooning, both are within the normal aging pattern. Historically aging patterns have mostly been good until they are not good and a cliff dive, but the year the cliff dive happens is different for every player. The only other trend is a theoretical trend where the batting average goes down while the obp stays fairly consistent because of an increase walk, until the pitching figures out that the batter can't hit the fast ball any more... but that is a hypothesis that I don't think has ever been proven. Ultimately players play well until they cant, and there are a lot of cases where after the cliff dive they bounce back for half a season or more, but I would think that is about selective usage, luck etc.

"He's a horse every fifth day and a horse's ass the other four."

That should be the inscription on his plaque when he finally does get elected, in its entirety.

CURTIS MONTAGUE SCHILLING

BALTIMORE, A.L. 1988-1990; HOUSTON, N.L. 1991;
PHILADELPHIA, N.L. 1992-2000; ARIZONA, N.L. 2000-2003;
BOSTON, A.L. 2004-2007

HE WAS A HORSE EVERY FIFTH DAY AND A HORSE'S ASS THE OTHER FOUR.

I originally tried to find an argument that the op was trying to point out about how McGriff was unusual, and I just couldn't see it. Consistent with normal fluctuations isn't a sign of an unusual aging pattern. As pa goes down, you assume either some type of platooning or injury is taking place, even if it's not normal lefty/righty platooning, both are within the normal aging pattern. Historically aging patterns have mostly been good until they are not good and a cliff dive, but the year the cliff dive happens is different for every player. The only other trend is a theoretical trend where the batting average goes down while the obp stays fairly consistent because of an increase walk, until the pitching figures out that the batter can't hit the fast ball any more... but that is a hypothesis that I don't think has ever been proven. Ultimately players play well until they cant, and there are a lot of cases where after the cliff dive they bounce back for half a season or more, but I would think that is about selective usage, luck etc.

Perhaps focusing on OPS+ makes it harder to see; players can maintain a high OPS+ through a late-career decline if they are carefully rested and/or platooned. Using WAR, especially oWAR, may be easier to see the mid-career trough for McGriff:

age oWAR
24 - 5.1
25 - 6.2
26 - 5.5
27 - 4.4
28 - 5.3
29 - 4.2
30 - 3.9 (strike year)

31 - 1.8
32 - 2.1
33 - 1.0
34 - 2.1

35 - 4.7
36 - 1.8
37 - 3.8
38 - 2.7

McGriff played at all-star level every year through age 30. He was a below-average player every year at 31-34. A normal aging pattern would see further decline after that, maybe one final good year, before career end. Here, we see a multi-year resurgence lasting through age 38. No, he wasn't Barry Bonds setting new career highs. But he was clearly defying what we would expect with a normal aging pattern.

I agree this was different from "what we would expect with a normal aging pattern". But is it so different that it is suspicious? If you took the top 200 MLBers in some career stat (oWAR, WAR, WAA) that is a) not simply PA, since that has a huge survivor bias, and b) not purely rate such as OPS+, which has a big anti-survivor bias (and in fact, maybe take the top 100 with career PA within +-1500 of McGriff), then we could assess if the Crime Dog is an outlier (top 1-2%?), of he simply falls within the top 15% or so, which should not be suspicius. You can even get rid of known PED users in the sample if you wish.

I suspect, only because I can name a few off the top of my head, that McGriff's late surge is not all *that* outside what can randomly happen.

Name the roider based on this oWAR pattern. I say this is just as obvious as McGriff, having a good but inconsistent career until age 32, where he improves. His career bests are ages 36 & 37. Hint: His name has been mentioned in this thread.

age oWAR
22 - 2.3
23 - 1.7
24 - 2.5
25 - 1.8
26 - 4.1
27 - 1.8
28 - 4.8
29 - 2.2
30 - 2.4
31 - 2.7
32 - 4.5
33 - 3.3
34 - 4.0
35 - 3.1
36 - 6.5
37 - 5.2
38 - 0.9
39 - 0.7

Here's another example - improved after 30, had his best year at 34, as productive at 41 as he had been at 25, everything you expect from a stereotypical roider:

Age oWAR
24 - 3.5
25 - 5.2
26 - 6.4
27 - 6.9
28 - 6.2
29 - 6.6
30 - 8.4
31 - 8.7
32 - 8.3
33 - 9.8
34 - 11.4
35 - 8.3
36 - 5.3
37 - 6.0
38 - 6.1
39 - 3.1
40 - 2.6
41 - 5.2
42 - 3.4

I wager that 55 is Honus Wagner. 54 is harder since the peak is more pedestrian.

McGriff's late-career "spike" happened after a round of expansion and after he moved to the AL where he could DH periodically. So maybe those factors had an effect.

I wager that 55 is Honus Wagner.

Correct.

Name the roider based on this oWAR pattern. I say this is just as obvious as McGriff, having a good but inconsistent career until age 32, where he improves. His career bests are ages 36 & 37. Hint: His name has been mentioned in this thread.

Zack Wheat?

54 is harder since the peak is more pedestrian.

Paul Konerko?

OK, not Konerko. He was never that good. But similar profile. Best season at 34, better at 35 and 36 than in any season prior to 29.

It was a good year of voting all around. It is telling that my biggest complaint was Machado getting 2nd over Arenado.

(I also think Dylan Cease should have beaten Verlander, but I recognize that it is very much a minority opinion and I certainly don't think Verlander winning is egregious, like Ohtani beating Judge would have been.)

#54 was indeed Zack Wheat.

Here's a guy who musta taken SOMETHING from age 28 onward....

Age oWAR
21 - 6
22 - 4
23 - 5
24 - 0 (injured)
25 - 4
26 - 4
27 - 6
28 - 9
29 - 9
30 - 9
31 - 11
32 - 10
33 - 6
34 - 2
35 - 3
36 - 4
37 - 2
38 - 5
39 - 3
40 - 2