What more can he do? He could have scared people! Maybe he should have worn a Halloween costume to bat. Or maybe in the field! Rice was a feared hitter, but McGriff could have set himself apart as a feared FIELDER.

Agreed. I think you bring up an important point regarding "filler" seasons in general (that is, if I fully understand the nuances of your argument; if not, I will take credit for this point :-D)... they don't add to a guy's HoF resume, but they don't really detract, either. For instance, if you WERE to believe that McGriff's 493 HRs over 19 years was HoF worthy and would vote for him, I don't think you'd suddenly decide that he was NOT worthy if he ended up with 500 over 20 years because he came back for one more year and hit .219 with 7 dingers. I don't think it'd be anything we'd want to see and maybe it'd tarnish his legacy with respect to his preference for individual platitudes over team success. I sometimes seem people say so-and-so is not a HoF because he padded his stats at the end, ignoring the fact that he might have been a HoF before the stat-padding. Obviously, there is a limit at some point, but some people seem inclined to punish guys for "filler" seasons, which seems just as bad as rewarding them for it.

In general, I'm with you and prefer rate stats and peaks to counting stats and longevity. Where does that leave me with McGriff? I'm still not entirely sure. But I'm okay with that for right now. My inclination is to say "no" to him, with the caveat being that I get to eject at least 50% of those who are clearly inferior to him but are in the hall already. Right or wrong, the criteria for the HoF is somewhat dependent on who is already there. And I sometimes find it bothersome that some guys are seemingly "punished" because they are being evaluated by a more informed, intelligent, or thoughtful electorate. In reality, the issue is that no one is really being punished, just some were unfairly rewarded because the electorate was wrong and, ideally, would have this unfair reward taken back. But, that doesn't really seem reasonable. So we're left attempting to make sense of a HoF that does have Jim Rice and doesn't have Fred McGriff, when likely neither one should be in, but the implication of this reality is that Rice was a better player than McGriff, which makes me want to chew glass (and not because it might make some no-nothing head-in-the-sand luddite HoF voter cast his vote for me and my intangible toughness).

Of course his career deserves to be recognized. Actually I was a McGriff fan. I just don't think the HOF is appropriate recognition. But he is not clearly unqualified, and again, if I really spent the time to do a thorough analysis, I might change my mind. I don't think a vote for him is at all ridiculous.

Again, my major point was that artificial thresholds and career totals do not mean much to me. As I posted recently on another thread, if Harold Baines had continued limping along to reach 3000 hits, he would not get my vote. McGriff is a HOFer or he isn't, but I don't think hitting 7 more HR should change anyone's mind on the subject -- at least not anymore than his going from 486 to 493 would have.

I suppose I would argue on behalf of yet a DIFFERENT definition of filler season. Did McGriff have some seasons that were less than stellar? Certainly. Most guys, with perhaps Pujols being the sole exception of recent memory, are going to have some fluctuation. I don't know the average OPS+ of a 1B, but 110 seems like a fair estimate. With that in mind, I think we can point out 1997, 1998, and 2000 as potentially "filler" seasons. 1995 and 1996 aren't particularly stand-out as well. Mixed in there are 1999, 2001, and 2002, which essentially makes up the second half of his career. So, obviously, not every one of his seasons was exceptional. But who's is? For me, filler seasons are those tacked on to the end of a guy's career by which point he has proven himself to be unproductive yet still compiling stats. At worst, McGriff was an average offensive 1B from 1995 through 2002. I don't think it's fair to dismiss his accomplishments during that time as "filler". Otherwise, we'd have to go through every player's career and pick out any random season that was average or worse and eliminate those stats from his record, which just doesn't seem right.

Do they ADD to his case? Individually, no. Do they detract from it? I don't think that's an appropriate conclusion. But, in totality, is there not something worth recognizing about a guy who put together a 19 year career, 16 of which were at their very worst average offensively? And most of which were significantly more so? Would he be a stronger candidate if he stopped playing after 1994?

Now, does that make him a HoFer? I'm still not sure. OPS+ may not even be the best tool for determining such. But, I don't think we can really use the term "filler season" for McGriff.

Who would I use as a good example of unfairly benefiting from "filler seasons"? Andre Dawson. Taking out the last 4 years of his career, where he played 317 games, had OPS+'s of 92, 82, 92, and 92, played at least half of those games at DH, and racked up 39 HRs leaves him with... 399 HRs. And would he even be talked about for the HoF if he didn't pass the magic *400* mark?

McGriff doesn't seem to be in much danger of being overrated to me since he wasn't respected in his time or after his time and is no more tainted by PEDs than any typical player from his era.