500 HR, baby!

[SWC75]

Eddie Murray hit 504 home runs and was elected to the Hall of Fame in 2003, having retired in 1997.

3026g .287/.359/.476 Per 162g: 71w 174h 30D 2T 27HR 103rbi 87rs

Eddie Murray Stats, Height, Weight, Position, Rookie Status & More | Baseball-Reference.com

Check out the latest Stats, Height, Weight, Position, Rookie Status & More of Eddie Murray. Get info about his position, age, height, weight, draft status, bats, throws, school and more on Baseball-reference.com

www.baseball-reference.com

Fred McGriff hit 493 home runs and was elected to the Hall of Fame in 2022, having retired in 2004.

2460g .284/.377/.509 Per 162g: 86w 164h 29d 2t 32hr 102rbi 89rs

Fred McGriff Stats, Height, Weight, Position, Rookie Status & More | Baseball-Reference.com

Check out the latest Stats, Height, Weight, Position, Rookie Status & More of Fred McGriff. Get info about his position, age, height, weight, draft status, bats, throws, school and more on Baseball-reference.com

www.baseball-reference.com

 

[br801]

Murray was a far superior glove. Also played many more games and thus ran up the counting stats. He was the better player, save for the home run rate.

 

[SWC75]

Murray was a far superior glove. Also played many more games and thus ran up the counting stats. He was the better player, save for the home run rate.

They were certainly comparable with the bat, with McGriff being a little better in the averages. I suppose playing more games is a virtue in itself but does 'push up' Murray's stats. Being a better glove should matter but how often does that get into the Hall of Fame?

Whether Murray was the better player isn't even quite the point. Should McGriff have had to wait as long as he did? Do you doubt that if he'd gotten to 500 that he would have been in a long time ago?

 

[br801]

They were certainly comparable with the bat, with McGriff being a little better in the averages. I suppose playing more games is a virtue in itself but does 'push up' Murray's stats. Being a better glove should matter but how often does that get into the Hall of Fame?

Whether Murray was the better player isn't even quite the point. Should McGriff have had to wait as long as he did? Do you doubt that if he'd gotten to 500 that he would have been in a long time ago?

I have no problem with McGriff getting in. I just think Murray was the better player for the reasons I stated.

 

[UnknownOrange]

Similar... I guess.

The HOF has always been about statistics, and EM's are just better.

Then factor in the 500/3000 club of which there are 7 members, EM being one of them.

I think McGriff getting in is fine, but I'm also OK with it taking as long as it did for him

 

[SWC75]

Similar... I guess.

The HOF has always been about statistics, and EM's are just better.

Then factor in the 500/3000 club of which there are 7 members, EM being one of them.

I think McGriff getting in is fine, but I'm also OK with it taking as long as it did for him

Maybe EM should get credited with playing more games but that's why he got to 3000/500. His averages are clearly not better than McGriff. And why are you fine with Fred waiting two decades to get in? Is there some sort of sliding scale for how long it should take?

 

[UnknownOrange]

Maybe EM should get credited with playing more games but that's why he got to 3000/500. His averages are clearly not better than McGriff. And why are you fine with Fred waiting two decades to get in? Is there some sort of sliding scale for how long it should take?

Longevity is important of course. Getting to those numbers is clearly rarified air -- but yes, to your point, he played more than FM

I should have worded my response better. I'm fine with him going through the process and getting in, but that takes time. The voters just never felt he was worthy of the 75% mark, but the veterans committee elected him.

However I am likely not in the majority when it comes to the HOF because I believe Bonds & Clemmens should be in.

 

[PoppyHart]

I think he also got bonus points for being a switch hitter and never doing a Tom Emanski video.

 

[br801]

Maybe EM should get credited with playing more games but that's why he got to 3000/500. His averages are clearly not better than McGriff. And why are you fine with Fred waiting two decades to get in? Is there some sort of sliding scale for how long it should take?

Murray currently ranks 14th in career hits; that's rarified air, even if the guy doesn't pop into one's head when thinking about the all-time greats, and certainly counts for something. McGriff is 103rd in career hits; lots of better players have waited longer to get in, or are still waiting.

 

[donniesyracuse]

I can't resist.

Murray 72.0 WAR

McGriff 56.9 WAR

(from FanGraphs)

 

[PoppyHart]

Also, at the time of induction he was only the 3rd player with 3,000 hits & 500 HRs.

 

[SWC75]

I can't resist.

Murray 72.0 WAR

McGriff 56.9 WAR

(from FanGraphs)

Again, it's about one player playing in 3,026 games and the other 2,460. If Fred had played in as many games as Eddie, he'd have hit 606 home runs and would have been in the Hall of Fame a long time ago.

 

[donniesyracuse]

Again, it's about one player playing in 3,026 games and the other 2,460.

Yes, clearly there is more to it than McGriff coming up 7 HR shy of 500.

If your larger point is that the hall of fame is inconsistent and illogical, well, duh.