I say yes. He has a career line of .284-493-1500 and he is one of the few sluggers who was almost certainly roid free. He also was a solid hitter in the playoffs with a career avg of .303 with 10 homers.
2007-05-26 09:18:28 · 9 answers · asked by Knight-of-God 3 in Sports ➔ Baseball
McGriff is a funny case. He put up good numbers year after year, but never great numbers. You'd think a guy with all those homers would have driven in more than 110 runs at least once in his career. McGriff was really good for quite a while, but never dominated.
Guys like that usually have to play a long time in order to get into the Hall -- think of a Bert Blyleven. McGriff could have helped his case by reaching 500 homers. Still, he's comparable statistically to such players as McCovey, Stargell, Bagwell and Frank Thomas, so I'd put his chances of going in at 50-50 or better.
2007-05-26 10:53:50 · answer #1 · answered by wdx2bb 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Despite his many accomplishments as a player and contributions to the success of the teams he played for I don't think he should be in the Hall of Fame yet. There are other eligible players such as Mark McGwire, Jim Rice, Albert Belle, Don Mattingly, Steve Garvey, Dave Parker, Ted Simmons, Alan Trammell, Andre Dawson, Dale Murphy, Tony Oliva, Al Oliver, Tip O'Neill, George Van Haltren, Lance Parrish, Dave Concepcion, Jose Canseco and Bob Boone who deserve induction to Cooperstown before Fred McGriff.
2007-05-26 09:56:35 · answer #2 · answered by schaidog 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
His overall numbers just aren't there and he was pretty much a statue at first. But I'm not just going by the numbers. I'm from Toronto.
One of the overall qualifications for the HOF is that the player be pretty much the best of his generation at his position. McGriff's contemporaries at first included Don Mattingly, Will Clark, Mark Grace and Jeff Bagwell, as well as Rafael Palmeiro (tested positive for steroids) and Mark McGwire (admitted to using andro, when it was legal in baseball). McGriff simply doesn't stand out of that crowd.
2007-05-26 09:33:32 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. He was a TERRIBLE first baseman. He had good offensive stats, but he did nothing in the field to help the team. I saw too many runners beat out close plays because he failed to stretch to get get the throw. He was a liability on the field.
His offensive stats are close, but he played a position with a lot of great players. He either needed better offensive numbers, or he needed to be a better first baseman.
2007-05-26 09:46:17 · answer #4 · answered by Sports Fix Chicago 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think he is. He has good numbers for his career, but he was never one of the dominant players of his era. Whether that is a result of him being clean while everyone else was juicing doesn't matter. He just didn't have a dominant enough career to make it into the HOF.
2007-05-26 10:10:44 · answer #5 · answered by ajn4664_ksu 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd vote for him, and I think the writers will, without futzing around for too many years. His falling short of 500 homers won't be the albatross many think it is.
2007-05-26 09:31:40 · answer #6 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes. Not first ballot but he will get in one day.
2007-05-26 09:27:37 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
no, he wasn't the best first baseman of his era.
2007-05-26 09:26:31 · answer #8 · answered by Dodgerblue 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
no
2007-05-26 09:46:33 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋