Talk:Fred McGriff

message: I am starting to see stuff about this "company" all over baseball articles... you can find it on Rocco Baldelli, Sandy Alomar Sr., Kelly Gruber, Eddie Zosky, Ed Sprague, Rob Ducey... I can't find anything about this anywhere else but wikipedia... --Catz  [T • C] 15:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rocco's Jobbers"? 

message: how is the picture from 2007 if he retired in 2004? Gonzoramone (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the photo description, it's from when McGriff was the first base coach for the Devil Rays during spring training in 2007. Trut-h-urts man (T • C)  04:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong dates? 

message: Under Legacy, the article mentions McGriff as "one of only 16 players to record a career .280 batting average, .375 on-base percentage, and .500 slugging percentage along with at least 490 home runs." While true, and even from a source as official as MLB.com, it's a classic example of cherry-picking stats to make a player seem impressive. Don't get me wrong--I'm hoping the VC selects McGriff this winter, so I'm not objecting because I think McGriff was a lousy player. Bill James explains it well in his "Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame?", but basically--the more stats you use, the more dubious the case, and having suspiciously specific milestones (490 home runs being the most obvious here) can be used to cut out players who don't help your case. True, there are only 16 players with all four of these criteria. But there are only 30 players with 490 home runs. Three of the four stats given aren't "milestones", and it's obvious those standards were chosen specifically because it would allow McGriff in the category.
What kind of makes it worse is that it isn't needed. Fiddling around with the tools on baseball-reference.com, if you lowered the qualifications to the more milestone-y 450 home runs and .275/.375/.475 slash line (not really milestones, but now they're all the same... I don't know, percentile? .x75), the list only grows to 20.
I don't know. Am I even making sense? And if I am, am I making too much of it? (Not that I think it's a BIG deal or anything.) 147.226.230.176 (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking the same thing. The stats chosen seem to have been obviously engineered to fall just below his numbers, which suggests that the other 15 players were probably stronger across the board. Often it served little purpose - of the 30 players with 490 HR, 27 have slugging percentages over .500, with McGriff ranking 26th; Banks, Killebrew and Reggie all had much lower batting averages anyway, so including the slugging mark really only eliminates Murray (who would get dropped anyway by the OBP). It's an odd grouping. As James has noted, it's much more impressive if you can put a player in the middle of a group, rather than at its lower end. I personally like the McGriff selection as well (though I'm disappointed he didn't have company); if they hadn't shortened the eligibility period from 15 years to 10, he might have gotten elected by the BBWAA before time ran out. I'd rate him around the 21st greatest first baseman, behind Cepeda and Hodges but ahead of Beckley, Perez and Terry. The upcoming BBWAA vote is worrying me, as the closest players from last year seem either like acceptable but marginal (Rolen, who I see as only about the sixth-best 3rd baseman not in) or getting solid support but not really deserving (Wagner, who I think didn't pitch quite enough - only 3600 batters faced, far behind anyone yet in... and never led his league in saves). MisfitToys (talk) 07:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: While I understand and agree with the points above generally, I think it's important to ask who is cherrypicking the stats. If it's us, then its a problem of WP:OR. If it's the reliable sources, then it isn't. All of the sources seem to point out that he was seven home runs shy of 500, so that is clearly important to include. Being one of only 16 to reach those four markers might be WP:DUE, or it might be how one writer tried to puff up McGriff's credentials. It matters how the breadth of coverage of his career lists out his accomplishments. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the article isn't exactly "scholarly" (written for the official MLB.com site in a piece meant to praise a player), and that McGriff is no longer the only non-Haller in that group, should that bit just be deleted? 147.226.95.63 (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of cherry-picked stats