I found an article by Matt Snyder that says most of what I have to say much better than I can say it. The bottom line is that Fred McGriff again came woefully short of entry into the Hall of Fame, that this was his last year of normal eligibility… and that he’s been done wrong.
Snyder observes that the Crime Dog logged ten seasons of thirty or more home runs. I would add that seven of these came consecutively, and that the two ensuing seasons of 27 and 28 were both reduced thanks to a players’ strike. (Well… Snyder had to remind me here that 1994 was virtually cut in half—and he finely observes that McGriff would have blown the lid off several categories if allowed to continue his work that year). Twelve 30+ home-run seasons adorned Fred’s résumé by the time he hung up the spikes (two of them played out under the extreme distraction of a mid-season trade).
Here’s my special gripe about the matter, which a professional sportswriter would probably be ill advised to express as openly as I will do. McGriff’s totals were compiled right in the heart of the Steroids Era. They did not fluctuate so as to indicate mysteriously magnified physical power: they reached a plateau and stayed there for a decade. That McGriff was his league’s home-run leader in only two seasons (36 with the Blue Jays in 1990, 35 with the Padres in 1992) isn’t a sign that he was an “average” middle-order slugger for his time; it is instead evidence, I should say, that the average was being grossly inflated around him by PED’s. Furthermore, Fred’s ability to replicate his power numbers in Toronto, San Diego, Atlanta, and Chicago (Cubs) demonstrates that there was nothing place-specific (e.g., dry, thin air or a secret system for stealing pitches) about his performance.
I’ll diverge from my main point for just a moment. Let’s stick with hitter-friendly ballparks briefly. From 1987 to 2002, Fred’s On-Base Percentage dipped into the .350s (still very respectable) only twice. From 1997 to 2004, however, one of this year’s inductees, Larry Walker, reeled off a really impressive string of nine seasons with an OBP of over .400. Yet these were Walker’s Colorado years; elsewhere his typical value fluctuated much more than McGriff’s. Walker’s 383 homers, besides, are not overwhelming when one considers his ten seasons in Coors Field (only one of which—1997—saw his tally exploding up to 49; he topped 30 only three other times); and his career doubles total, while regal at 471, is only 30 ahead of McGriff’s in ballparks where hits didn’t carry with the same force. Yes, Fred enjoyed about 1,700 more AB’s than Larry… but he also walked almost 400 more times, notably higher than Walker’s rate.
Indeed, I suspect we may see here part of the “reverse mystique” of Fred McGriff. He was the ultimate in patient hitting. He consistently gave up the outside corner. The “damage” he did to his reputation as a savage slugger by exhibiting such self-control makes me recall what I’ve read about Ted Williams’ relative unpopularity when Joe DiMaggio was stirred into the same discussion during their days of active play. People like to see Mighty Casey expand the zone with two strikes and take his chances on chipping one down the off-field line with a furious hack. Not only did Fred, like Ted, not fit this model: McGriff, unlike Williams, never had a caustic word for umpires who rung him up on something a little off the plate. Fred McGriff was as polite a human being as ever wore a baseball uniform.
Another debatable Hall-of-Famer, Orlando Cepeda, amassed numbers mostly a bit better than Larry Walker’s across the board—and he did so without benefit of Coors Field’s thin air. Where Cepeda’s figures distinctly underperform Walker’s (BA, OBP), they seem to me to reflect his time’s preference for more aggressive sluggers who didn’t try to work walks. Again, fans like the “madman with a machete” image of power-hitting—which fact may indeed have impeded Larry’s ascent to the Hall. (Snyder rightly scoffs at the word-of-mouth “most feared of his day” criterion, another morph of the “wild man” stereotype.) Cepeda had two other off-the-field factors working in his favor, as well. One was his Latino identity: the sportswriter clan wanted somebody besides Clemente representing that demographic. The other was that Orlando ran afoul of laws prohibiting the use of recreational drugs. The feeling among the chattering white-collar classes (and I lived through those days, so I can tell you that such “feelings” were palpable) was in favor of sticking it to self-righteous “family values” politicians. That feeling, by the way—in case you’ve been living in a world engineered by your own preferred hallucinogen—has so mushroomed among the Hall’s electors as to overshadow a lot of factual evidence.
Now, I’m not arguing that either Orlando Cepeda or Larry Walker doesn’t belong on baseball’s Mount Olympus. What I believe we see in an alignment of all three cases is just how subjective the verdict of these “sportswriters” can be. I’m not even going to tackle the question of Wins Above Replacement: Wikipedia observes that sabermetricians have not even reached agreement on how to make the calculation. Grounding into double-plays, for instance, apparently brings a mandatory deduction—and I have to say that only a bunch of nerdy eggheads could seriously exact such a sanction. Double-play balls are hard hit (just ask Hank Aaron, the all-time leader); and any professional batsman will tell you that his objective is to make solid contact and leave the rest to the baseball gods. You can’t control such factors as how slow afoot the batting champ is who hits in front of you or how slick the middle infielders of your division rivals are.
So let’s return to subjectivity in the voting: to “perception”. The major issue that seems to me unaddressed in McGriff’s case is steroids. He didn’t use them. If the sun rises in the east, this man was clean. Fred was as thin as a rail, from his rookie year to his last AB with Tampa Bay. I don’t know how he did it, because most of us bulk up simply from the normal effects of aging. Larry Walker certainly became “thicker”. So did Frank Thomas. Did Walker fall under an unvoiced suspicion among the electors, like Craig Biggio with his Popeye-like forearms in later years—or like Jeff “I ain’t saying nothing” Bagwell (both of them teammates of Ken Camminiti, who lost his life to the effects of PED’s)? Thomas was admitted to Cooperstown immediately; Craig had to wait three years. Why? Was it because the “writers” were afraid to slander the Big Hurt lest their reluctance be interpreted as bigotry—the same dread that made them back off when Albert Pujolz indignantly denied rumors of “using” a few years back?
But the same writers and broadcasters will counter, “No, we never looked at size—you can’t tell by size. Steroids make you heal faster: they don’t necessarily make you bigger.” Oh, so… so that lets you conjure up a cloud of steroid-usage pretty much anywhere you want, just to reinforce or justify an existing prejudice. The astonishing steadiness of McGriff’s output straight through the minefield of the Steroids Era, then, is of no interest to you: you’ll just keep analyzing his performance against the Rafael Palmeiros and Andres Galarragas of his day… and that makes for a mediocre WAR. Okay.
Fred McGriff deserves to be rewarded for not breaking the rules: besides a career which is distinguished by any measure, he deserves special consideration for that. How are we to expect law-abiding conduct of our children when they see that (in Leo Durocher’s immortal phrase) “nice guys finish last”? But the twits who make these calls have little respect for society’s rules. They’re the same pack, essentially—their intellectual DNA is the same—as persistently ignored Gil Hodges, the supreme first-stacker of his generation who was briefly the National League’s all-time right-handed home-run king, and who served his nation fighting in the heart of World War Two’s bloodiest theater… and who skippered the Miracle Mets… ignored Gil Hodges because he was a quiet man and didn’t vocally, fists flying, champion Jackie Robinson. So they say, these twits with their algorithms who never had the guts to champion anyone chin-first.
Look at what they’ve done to Curt Schilling. At least Curt knew what he was getting into by speaking his mind in our “free society”. As for Fred… Fred is so like Gil, in a way: a quiet gentleman who didn’t spout quotable comments and didn’t fuel exciting controversies. Just a decent human being who went about his business. They hate those.