Fred McGriff career formula: .284/.377/.509 + 493 home runs + sweet nickname = forgotten slugger now more well known for being part of "back-to-back-to-back AAU champions".
What gives?
Gin and Tacos asks:
why Murray is a first ballot Hall of Famer and McGriff is not HOF-level. It boils down to the worship of arbitrary statistical milestones, namely the 500 HR barrier. In the most important stats like OPS+ or OBP, McGriff was actually better than Murray (and Winfield). A player's career does not become more impressive – certainly not in any meaningful way – when he moves from 499 to 500. Usually sportswriters and HOF voters fall back on the "no championships" argument, but Murray and McGriff each own a ring and the same number of WS appearances. Instead, they have to rely on dumb statistics like wins, total hits, and career HR totals to include or exclude players whoHe's right, judging by any non-counting statistic that you want to use, Fred McGriff has been the better hitter:
never played in New York or Boston
failed to meet the nebulous standards of true "stardom."
OBP: McGriff .377 / Murray .359
OPS+: McGriff 134 / Murray 129
wOBA: McGriff .382 / Murray .365
(Now that is back-to-back-to-back championships right there)
Well, does defense matter?
Yes, kinda. Using an all-in-one statistic like WAR (Wins Above Replacement)* we can see that Eddie Murray was by all accounts a better overall player. Take a look at FanGraphs WAR Graph:
*WAR is an all-inclusive statistic that tells hows how many wins a player is worth relative to replacement level. It uses linear weights (wOBA) to determine a players offensive contributions and UZR for defense.
As you can see Murray, edges out the Crime Dog, with a 78.8 to 61.3 edge in FanGraphs WAR. If we use Baseball-Reference's WAR we get similar results with Murray having a 66.7 to 51.3 edge.
However, that is almost beside the point as Gin and Tacos correctly states: "nobody voted for Murray because of his D and no one will vote against McGriff on that basis either". Nobody would (rightly) argue against Murray being the better overall player, but defensive contributions at first base and extended playing time into your 40s aren't reasons for someone to get a ticket to Cooperstown over another (especially considering how Murray got the Express First Ballot Ticket). When Eddie Murray got elected,
Unfortunately I can't find the Tom Emanski video with McGriff so I'll leave you with this:
It looks like the old lady is using a stolen product herself, that belongs to Mr. Zack Morris!
There's a problem with using average OPS+.
ReplyDeleteMcGriff had a career OPS+ of 134, and played 2460 games.
As the end of the 1992 season, Murray played 2444 career games, and had a career OPS+ of 136.
So, after 2460 games, Murray was a better hitter than McGriff, at least according to OPS+. (I don't have Murray's wOBA after the 1992 season, and I don't have wOBA comparisons to the league for either player.)
After game number 2460, Murray had 566 more games with an OPS+ of 99. It's not that impressive, but it's better than McGriff, who had zero games, and hence zero offensive value.
So if Murray was a better hitter than McGriff over career games 1 through 2460, and Murray was a better hitter than McGriff after career game 2460, it then follows that Murray was a better hitter than McGriff overall.
Yet, looking at career OPS+ alone, we might erroneously conclude that McGriff was a better hitter than Murray.
---
Let's try another breakdown.
Before age 24, McGriff had 2/3 of a season, and an OPS+ of 128. Murray had 3 seasons, and an OPS+ of 131.
Between ages 24 and 35, McGriff had an OPS+ of 139 over 12 seasons. Murray also had an OPS+ of 139 over 12 seasons.
After age 35, McGriff played 563 games, and had an OPS+ of 119. Murray played 738 games, and had an OPS+ of 102. The difference between McGriff's OPS+ and Murray's OPS+ is due entirely to what they did during their decline phases.
The use of career averages will underrate players with gradual and lengthy declines, and overrate players with sudden and short decline phases. Don't say that Murray was a worse hitter than McGriff just because Murray wasn't washed up after game number 2460.
Understood, and maybe I was overstating the case by saying McGriff was a better hitter, but still, they are comparable enough where one player isn't deserving of first ballot and the other not even a sniff.
ReplyDeleteAnd while it's safe to say McGriff would have put up some poor seasons hurting his career averages if he was able to play a little longer, he also would have gotten 500 HRs, likely putting him in the HOF and making this a moot argument
ReplyDelete