From now until the Baseball Hall of Fame Class of 2010 is announced, The Hall is going to be breaking down each candidate. Some write ups will be lengthy...some will be the opposite. Some will be brand new pieces...some will be re-hashes of previous pieces.
And only because I can't argue with what Gary Armida over at FullCountPitch has to say...here is his take on Fred McGriff.
The case of Fred McGriff is quite curious for a number of reasons.
On one hand, he was a player who was remarkably consistent during his career. On the other hand, he was a player whose statistics were often dwarfed by his peers during one of the most controversial eras in Baseball history.
Because of the latter reason, one could often forget a player like Fred McGriff who played for 19 seasons and posted strong numbers. Unfortunately, McGriff played in the era when players like Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Rafael Palmiero, Mark McGwire, and Sammy Sosa made headlines. This has led to the general feeling that McGriff was not an elite player and that he was simply a solid player with a compiled end result.
It is an interesting debate as McGriff is really one of the first players who actually brings the impact of the era to the forefront. Should he get bonus points because he played at the height of the performance enhancing drug era?
Probably not, but one has to take out the idea of perception when discussing McGriff’s Hall of Fame credentials.
When discussing Hall of Fame candidates, the question about being the most dominant player in the era usually is brought up. It is a question that may likely keep McGriff out of Cooperstown.
However, it is a question that just be unfair.
Read the rest of what Gary has to say HERE.