Make us your home page

Get the quickest, smartest news, analysis and photos from the Bucs game emailed to you shortly after the final whistle.

(View our Privacy Policy)

Fred McGriff at a disadvantage with Hall of Fame voters because numbers don't rival steroid users'

Once, Fred McGriff’s numbers would have made him seem an automatic Hall selection.

Associated Press (2004)

Once, Fred McGriff’s numbers would have made him seem an automatic Hall selection.

ST. PETERSBURG — There are a number of ways of looking at the steroid era when filling out a Hall of Fame ballot.

For instance, you can choose to believe steroid users were cheaters, and their ill-gotten statistics do not belong in Cooperstown. Or you can accept that steroids were a fact of life in baseball, and inflated numbers should be judged in their context.

It's a complex issue, and I don't think either point of view is absolutely right or absolutely wrong.

The problem is a player such as Fred McGriff who is getting caught in the middle.

Let me explain:

The Hall of Fame class of 2011 was announced Wednesday with Roberto Alomar and Bert Blyleven, the top holdovers from 2010, receiving the necessary 75 percent vote from 581 ballots cast by members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America. That was no surprise.

The more interesting vote totals were further down the list. Mark McGwire dropped below 20 percent and Rafael Palmeiro, in his first year on the ballot, received only 11 percent of the vote. Those percentages are clearly impacted by steroid issues for both players.

Essentially, voters are saying either that McGwire and Palmeiro should be punished for their association with steroids, or that neither player would have been Hall of Fame worthy if not for advantages gained from performance-enhancing drugs.

Whether you agree or disagree, at least you understand the rationale.

But what's the explanation for McGriff?

The Tampa native and former Ray dropped from 21.5 percent of the vote last year to 17.9 percent. No one has ever suggested McGriff was associated in any way with steroids, so we know that's not the reason. Which means his low vote total must be based on his statistics.

And that's where I think McGriff is getting shortchanged by steroids.

The unprecedented power numbers of the performance-enhancing drug era have made McGriff's career look puny by contrast. And that's simply not fair. If you're going to punish steroid users, how do you also punish the clean players who didn't have cartoon bodies or statistics?

McGriff finished with 2,490 hits, 493 home runs, 1,550 RBIs and 1,305 walks. Once upon a time, those were automatic Hall of Fame numbers. Up until the year 2000, there were only 16 players with at least 2,000 hits, 450 homers, 1,500 RBIs and 1,000 walks. All 16 are in the Hall, and most were first-ballot inductees.

If that doesn't satisfy you, if you think his numbers were based more on longevity than impact, here is another way of looking at it. McGriff had a career OPS (on-base plus slugging percentage) of .886. Up until 2000, there were only nine players in history with at least 10,000 plate appearances and an OPS that high. Again, all nine are Hall of Famers.

So, whether you measured his career by volume or impact, McGriff was clearly on the road to the Hall of Fame.

Except for one problem. The steroid era changed the way we looked at those numbers.

Players implicated one way or another in scandals (Barry Bonds, Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez and Palmeiro for instance) began compiling insane offensive totals. So McGriff's once-automatic numbers suffered in comparison.

Now, based on the ballots received by Palmeiro and McGwire, most voters are choosing to punish players with steroid associations. Again, you can either agree or disagree with that line of thinking. But if those voters choose to punish players for putting up big numbers with steroids, how can they also punish McGriff for not matching those artificial numbers while clean?

It's almost as if the lines between the two arguments have blurred, and McGriff's career has gotten obscured.

Now this isn't a critical issue just yet because McGriff, 47, theoretically has another 13 years on the ballot, and that's plenty of time for opinions to evolve as the steroid era is put into a historical context.

It's just bothersome that he is starting off with such a low total. It's not unheard of for a player's stature to gradually grow — Blyleven got only 14.1 percent of the vote in his second year on the ballot — but that's clearly not the norm.

Granted, reasonable people can argue whether McGriff is a slam dunk Hall of Famer. I'm in his corner, and even I believe he is a borderline candidate.

So, no, I don't think it's a sin that McGriff has not yet gotten 75 percent of the vote. My concern is that he has not gotten 50 percent of the vote. Or 40. Or even 30. Because I believe he deserves better than that.

And I fear it's because he is being judged by artificial standards.

John Romano can be reached at


Hall of Fame voting

Hall of Fame voting by the Baseball Writers' Association of America. It takes 75 percent of the vote to be inducted:

Player Votes Pct

Roberto Alomar 523 90.0

Bert Blyleven 463 79.7

Barry Larkin 361 62.1

Jack Morris 311 53.5

Lee Smith 263 45.3

Jeff Bagwell 242 41.7

Tim Raines 218 37.5

Edgar Martinez 191 32.9

Player Votes Pct

Alan Trammell 141 24.3

Larry Walker 118 20.3

Mark McGwire 115 19.8

Fred McGriff 104 17.9

Don Mattingly 79 13.6

Dale Murphy 73 12.6

Rafael Palmeiro 64 11.0

Juan Gonzalez 30 5.2

Final year of eligibility: Dave Parker 89. Less than 5 percent, off ballot: Harold Baines 28, John Franco 27, Kevin Brown 12, Tino Martinez 6, Marquis Grissom 4, Al Leiter 4, John Olerud 4, B.J. Surhoff 2, Bret Boone 1, Benito Santiago 1


Romano ballot

Roberto Alomar

Jeff Bagwell

Bert Blyleven

Barry Larkin

Fred McGriff

Tim Raines

Fred McGriff at a disadvantage with Hall of Fame voters because numbers don't rival steroid users' 01/05/11 [Last modified: Thursday, January 6, 2011 7:57am]
Photo reprints | Article reprints

© 2017 Tampa Bay Times


Join the discussion: Click to view comments, add yours

  1. Chris Archer knocked out early as Rays lose to Orioles (w/video)

    The Heater

    BALTIMORE — Another short outing by Chris Archer led to another long afternoon for the Rays in a 9-4 loss to the Orioles on Sunday.

    Chris Archer has not gotten past four innings in four of his past five starts. [WILL VRAGOVIC | Times]
  2. Bucs-Vikings report card: Where's this explosive offense we heard about all offseason?


    MINNEAPOLIS — Times columnist Tom Jones gives his report card from the Bucs' 34-17 loss to the Vikings on Sunday:


    Minnesota Vikings cornerback Trae Waynes (26) intercepts a Jameis Winston pass intended for wide receiver DeSean Jackson (11) during the first half. [LOREN ELLIOTT   |   Times]
  3. Bucs-Vikings: Instant analysis from Tampa Bay's 34-17 loss


    MINNEAPOLIS — Here's Rick Stroud and Tom Jones' instant analysis from the Bucs' 34-17 loss at Minnesota Sunday. More to come from Rick & Tom — and Greg Auman —- from Minneapolis later today.

    Minnesota Vikings wide receiver Jarius Wright (17) dives over the pylon for a touchdown as  Bucs cornerback Ryan Smith (29) defends. [LOREN ELLIOTT   |   Times]
  4. Worst-Case scenario: Case Keenum, Vikings hand Bucs 34-17 loss


    MINNEAPOLIS — With key defensive starters out with injury, the Bucs were dominated by the Minnesota Vikings on Sunday, with fill-in quarterback Case Keenum beating Tampa Bay for the third year in a row, …

    Bucs quarterback Jameis Winston (3) is sacked by Minnesota Vikings defensive end Everson Griffen (97) during the first half. [LOREN ELLIOTT   |   Times]
  5. Bucs-Vikings: A by-the-numbers look at the Bucs' 34-17 loss


    Tampa Bay Buccaneers defensive tackle Clinton McDonald (98) hits Minnesota Vikings quarterback Case Keenum (7) as he passes during the first half of an NFL game between the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Minnesota Vikings at U.S. Bank Stadium in Minneapolis, Minn., on Sunday, Sept. 24, 2017. LOREN ELLIOTT   |   Times