Will Dale Murphy Get In?

[DaleC76]

-18 years, .265 avg, 2,111 hits, 398 HR, 1266 RBI.

-4th player (and the youngest ever) to win consecutive (1982-83) NL MVP awards
-Named to NL All-Star team 7 times (1980, 82-87), 5 as a starter
-Won 5 consecutive (1982-86) Gold Glove awards
-Won 4 consecutive (1982-85) Silver Stick awards
-Won 2 consecutive (1984-85) Mel Ott awards (home run champion)
-Named NL Player Of The Month a record 6 times (Aug. 1980, April 1982, Sept. 1983, Sept. 1984, April 1985, Aug. 1986)
-Became 4th NL player to join the 30/30 club (30 home runs & 30 stolen bases) in 1983
-Became 3rd player to to hit 30 home runs, steal 30 bases, and hit .300 in the same season (Mays, Aaron first two to do so)
-Holds the record for fewest double plays hit into in at least a 150-game season (0 in 1980 and 1985) with many others

-Franchise rankings: Games-3rd, At-Bats - 3rd, Hits-4th, Doubles-3rd, Home Runs-3rd, RBI-3rd, Runs-5th, Total Bases-3rd, Slugging Percentage-8th
-2nd Brave to receive the Gillette Trophy for collecting the most All-Star votes (1.4 million in 1985)
-All-Time Atlanta Braves Leader in games (1,926), at-bats (7,098), runs (1,103), hits (1,901), singles (1,187), doubles (306), home runs (371), runs batted in (1,143), walks (912), total bases (3,394), and extra base hits (714)
-Braves all-time leader in consecutive games played (740 games, 9/26/81 - 7/9/86) and 12th on the all-time list
-Braves franchise leader for most runs in a season (131 in 1983) in the modern era
-5th Brave to have uniform number (3) retired

[The Commissioner]

I definitely think he deserves to be in. However, I think I'm probably in the minority on this one. The way I look at it, it could be argued that he was the best player from the 1980s. Certainly if not THE best then he has to rank as one of the best. While his stats may not seem dominant by today's overinflated standards, he was dominant in his time. The hardest thing for Hall voters to overlook, though, is that career .265 batting average. When weighed against the two MVPs and his fielding prowess, though, he'd still get my vote.

[yellowdog]

Murph is one of my all time favorite players and it would be nice to see him get in. But realistically I would rate him as borderline, which in my opinion is not good enough. I think the Hall of Fame is for the really great players, not players who were very good for a long time, which is the category I believe he falls into. The only argument I see for Murphy is that there are players already in there with comparable numbers. But I feel that is a weak argument.

One thing that hurts him is that he played on horrible teams for most of his career and was constantly pitched around. I believe he became frustrated and got into a habit of expanding his strike zone and swinging at a lot of bad pitches. I suspect had he been in a different situation he could have put up even better numbers, but we'll never really know.

So on a personal level, I would like to see him in there. But in my heart, I really don't think he should be.

[The Commissioner]

Yellowdog, I find our difference of perspectives on this to be very interesting. I would actually disagree on what category of player Murphy falls into. I would think that the back to back MVPs would move him out of the" very good for a long time" category. To me, that's at least showing a short period of greatness that goes beyond the players usually thought of as being in that category. While he did play 18 seasons, he only had three complete seasons outside of the decade of the 1980's. Because of that, I've always percieved him as more of a great player who just may not have played long enough.

I definitely agree that playing on those sorry Braves teams didn't help him out at all. Do youn think his horrendous strikeout totals may be another contributing factor in keeping out of the Hall?

[yellowdog]

You make some good points, Commish. Winning back to back MVPs is an impressive feat for any player. And when you consider he did it on such a sorry team (even though he did have Bob Horner protecting him in the line up during the early 80s) is even more impressive. And I think you are right about his high strikeout total being a factor.

I guess when it comes down to players like Murphy it just depends on your own philosphy or idea of what the Hall of Fame should represent. I think they should err on the side of being too exclusive while many people feel borderline cases, like Murphy, should be given the benefit of the doubt. I understand that way of thinking and I can respect it.

But in my mind when you've got a bordeline case that you HAVE to make an argument for, then that player probably shouldn't be HOF worthy.

And I may be too critical of Murphy because I watched him play so many times during those lean years with the Braves, and despite the fact he was one of my top five all time favorite players, my frustration with those teams may somewhat taint memory of him. I would be fine with him making the Hall, in fact I would like to see it. But if I were a voter, I could not vote for him with a clear conscious, if that makes any sense.

[DaleC76]

My philosophy on the HoF is a bit different. I'd rather a few less-than-deserving players get voted in than for a guy who deserves it to be left out. The way I see it, a borderline guy getting in is no big deal, but when a player who belongs there gets left out, it's a crime.

Here's an interesting article I found at a Dale Murphy fansite:

"Hall of Fame Dominance and the History of Total Bases"

By Ed Tyree


Following the grand celebration, recently held at Cooperstown last July for the Class of '99, one might offer an additional perspective for the voting baseball writers to consider for future inductees. My approach concerns an area in baseball statistics, which is so informative and important, yet very little, is ever mentioned. The subject I ask writers to weigh and deliberate is the impact of total base leaders and our history during the past century of baseball. For general knowledge, total bases consists of 4 counted for a home run, 3 for a triple, 2 for a double, and 1 for a single. The research is as follows for total base leaders:

Total Base Leaders 1900 - Present:

1900 - 1909
1st - Honus Wagner
2nd - Sam Crawford

1910 - 1919
1st - Ty Cobb
2nd - Tris Speaker

1920 - 1929
1st - Babe Ruth
2nd - Rogers Hornsby

1930 - 1939
1st - Jimmie Foxx
2nd - Lou Gehrig

1940 - 1949
1st - Stan Musial
2nd - Ted Williams

1950 - 1959
1st - Stan Musial
2nd - Duke Snider

1960 - 1969
1st -Hank Aaron
2nd - Willie Mays

1970 - 1979
1st - Pete Rose
2nd - Bobby Bonds

1980 - 1989
1st - Dale Murphy
2nd - Eddie Murray

1990 - 1999
1st - Ken Griffey, Jr.
2nd - Rafael Palmeiro

It seems in baseball circles, the desired honors are centered on 3,000 hits, 500 home runs, 300 victories, and so on. These illustrious plateaus are certainly noteworthy, but please also reflect on the importance of total bases (especially for an entire decade).

The total bases leader during the 1980's was, of course, Dale Murphy, a two-time MVP winner and a dominant force during much of his decade. Murphy was second in home runs only to Mike Schmidt and second only to Eddie Murray in RBI's during this time frame. Additionally, Robin Yount finished third in total bases in the 1980's, behind Murphy and Murray. When one combines Murphy's outstanding statistics with his on- and off-the-field contributions and character to our National Pastime, one must consider his enshrinement in Cooperstown, July 2000.

Dale Murphy has kept company with some pretty darn good players, one could say! He is a most worthy candidate for the Hall.

[yellowdog]

I'm not really saying he shouldn't be in, but I understand why he isn't.

[Etheridge2]

Murphy played 18 years in the bigs and in only 5 of those years did he put up Hall worthy numbers that just isn't a great enouh period of dominance unless they were just record breaking seasons...

In other words his 5 years would have had to be 50+ HR and 120+ RBI with plus .300 BA instead his 5 dominant seasons were
82-85 and 87
HR 36,36,36,37, 44
RBI 109,121,100,111,105
BA .281, .302, .290, .300, .295
R 113,131,94,118,115
SB 23,30,19,10,16
SLG .507, 540, 547, 539, 580

His best years outside this stretch were good but barely even All-Star caliber (with maybe 1 or 2 exceptions)

Also he won his MVP's on two very good teams not bad ones (a 1st place squad in 82 and a 2nd place one in 1983) Granted those were the only good teams he played on.

Murphy was one of or perhaps the NICEST man to ever put on a Major League uniform and I would love it if he were worthy to see him in the Hall but he just didn't have the numbers either by a career measurement or by a long enough period of dominance as to were he ranks amongst the players of his day for a brief time he was certainly a top 5 player but Mike Schmidt, George Brett, Rickey Henderson, Dave Winfield, and Eddie Murray probably all ranked ahead of him during most of his career and they all sustained their greatness long enough to make it in.

Murphy shall forever be on the outside

[The Commissioner]

Originally posted by Etheridge2
In other words his 5 years would have had to be 50+ HR and 120+ RBI with plus .300 BA instead his 5 dominant seasons were
82-85 and 87
HR 36,36,36,37, 44
RBI 109,121,100,111,105
BA .281, .302, .290, .300, .295
R 113,131,94,118,115
SB 23,30,19,10,16
SLG .507, 540, 547, 539, 580


For the 1980's those numbers are fairly close to 50+HR 120+RBI seasons now.

I'd also question just how good that '82 squad was without him.

It wasn't just those few years that he was great, though. When you measure the 1980s as a whole he is one of the Top overall sluggers. For the decade he places 2nd overall in the ML with HR (308), T2nd RBI (929), 4th in runs (938), 1st in TB (2796) and 2nd in Extra base hits (596). When you add to that his fielding ability, he may very well be the most dominant player of the decade. If it's not Murphy , then he is fairly close behind only possibly aa few other names. Each of those are or will be Hall of Famers : Schmidt, Eddie Murray, Robin Yount, Wade Boggs?

[Etheridge2]

Originally posted by The Commissioner
.

It wasn't just those few years that he was great, though. When you measure the 1980s as a whole he is one of the Top overall sluggers. For the decade he places 2nd overall in the ML with HR (308), T2nd RBI (929), 4th in runs (938), 1st in TB (2796) and 2nd in Extra base hits (596). When you add to that his fielding ability, he may very well be the most dominant player of the decade. If it's not Murphy , then he is fairly close behind only possibly aa few other names. Each of those are or will be Hall of Famers : Schmidt, Eddie Murray, Robin Yount, Wade Boggs?

But it was just those years all of wich were in the 80's he garnered enough numbers for those 5 years to make his decade look impressive even though the other 5 years were nothing all that special

Guys like Boggs, Murray, Yount, and Schmidt had much longer dominant stretches and amassed greater career numbers.


Saying it wasn't just those years based on his numbers for the decade is cheating because those 5 big years padded his decade it would be like a guy who hit 46HR for 5 years and never more then 24 in another 5 has 350 HR's for the decade now who would be better that guy or a player that hit 35 HR EVERY year during that same decade...

I would probably lean towards the 35HR guys as the better player

[The Commissioner]

I can definitely see what you are saying in theory. However, there are so relatively few players that have amassed totals such as that over a ten year period, that either way they went about achieving it would tend to make them Hall worthy in my eyes. Then again, that's where I differ with most on this topic. The other area is that I see his glove, his leadership, and his baserunning all compensating for that horrid batting average, and most don't. I can definitely understand all the arguments posed against Murphy's induction, but I still take the view that he is Hall worthy.

[Cougar]

I agree; Murphy is definitely Hall-worthy.

A couple points that have not been mentioned (or perhaps not emphasized enough for my liking):

1. Murphy took walks; in his prime he was getting 90 or so a year. This partially compensates for his lower batting average. (So does his slugging percentage -- when he did get a hit, it counted.)

2. He wasn't the first 30 HR-30 SB man (I think that was Bobby Bonds), but he was among the first, when it was still relatively rare.

3. Murphy was an all around player -- he played center field (and later right field, but more CF) superbly (and CF is an important defensive position), he was an excellent baserunner, and he could hit, okay for average (.265 is far from horrid) and tremendously for power.

4. I guess maybe I'm just out of touch, but 398 home runs still impresses the heck out of me. Who cares if he hit most of them in a short peak rather than spreading them more evenly over his career? That's still more round-trippers than all but 35-odd players have hit EVER. And it wasn't with the juiced ball and the little league parks sluggers are enjoying now. (Although he did play in a good HR park, to be fair.)

5. His peak wasn't all that short either. It's basically from 1982-1980-1987, with an off year in 1981. And he was fairly productive in an incomplete season in 1979; extended to 150 it would be comparable with his prime seasons. Even in his rookie year, with a bad average, he had 23 HR and 79 RBI, back when hitting 25 HR could make one the clean-up hitter in some line-ups. When his bat speed abruptly left him, he still managed about 20 HR and 80 RBI every full season, far from throwaway totals at the time.

6. And if character counts for anything (and it does in the official guidelines), Murphy should be given a whole lot of credit. He is one of the finest men to ever play the game. His presence was important to counterbalance the drug scandals that plagued the early '80's (Murph's prime). Partially due to TBS, but mainly through his own accomplishments, he was one of the very most popular players of his day.

[Brad Harris]

Originally posted by Cougar
..He wasn't the first 30 HR-30 SB man (I think that was Bobby Bonds), but he was among the first, when it was still relatively rare...

Actually, it was Ken Williams, a left fielder who hit 39 home runs and stole 37 bases for the Browns in 1922.

[Brad Harris]

This should favor Murphy because it is specifically designed to encompass his career.

Most Runs Created, 1976-93
1717 George Brett
1694 Eddie Murray
1589 Dave Winfield
1564 Rickey Henderson
1550 Robin Yount
1447 Andre Dawson
1443 Mike Schmidt
1422 Paul Molitor
1413 Dwight Evans
1338 Wade Boggs
1311 Tim Raines
1291 Dave Parker
1290 Dale Murphy
1270 Lou Whitaker
1269 Jim Rice
1258 Jack Clark
1239 Keith Hernandez

Dawson, Molitor, Evans, Parker, Whitaker, Rice, Clark and Hernandez aren't in either.

Why Murphy instead of one of those?


Here's some other outfielders, all of whom had more runs created in their career than Murphy:

Selected Outfielders, 1876-2002
1750 Jimmy Ryan
1710 George Van Haltren
1590 Tim Raines
1435 Mike Tiernan
1434 Bob Johnson
1388 Vada Pinson
1360 Jimmy Sheckard
1296 Mike Griffin
1278 George Gore
1277 Brett Butler
1261 Sherry Magee
1228 Paul O'Neill
1219 Fred Lynn
1216 Bobby Bonds
1210 Kip Selbach
1210 Jose Cruz

Wally Moses, Dixie Walker, Doc Cramer, Dave Parker, Willie Davis, Bernie Williams, Reggie Smith, Patsy Donovan and Cy Williams also have more RC than Dale Murphy's total.

It seems pretty clear that Murphy's argument rests in being dominant in the short-term. Over the course of a career, he's overshadowed pretty easily.

[Brad Harris]

Well...I'm surprised...

Murphy was a dominant player for longer than I previously thought.

Using win shares to examine the relative value of his individual seasons, Murphy's career is broken down below.

For purposes of explanation, let's say that 0 win shares is a player who is replacement level. 1-9 win shares is a scrub, 10-19 is a regular, 20-29 is an all-star level and 30+ is an MVP-type season.

By those measurements, Murphy had the following career:
4 years at an MVP level (1982-85)
3 years at an All-Star level
6 years at a regular level
5 years at a scrub level

While the supporting career doesn't add up to much, 4 years at an MVP level is very, very good (and better than I'd thought.)

On the other hand, Murphy was never once the best player in his league, according to win shares. In 1982, when he won his first MVP, Mike Schmidt was the more valuable performer (according to win shares). In 1983, Pedro Guerrero was equally valuable, while Schmidt (once again) was the best player in the National League.

Murphy had four years as one of the best players in the game. He had a total of seven years (out of eighteen) playing at or above an all-star level.

Very, very borderline.

He looks better against other center fielders, but I just don't know. Again, I'd feel a lot more confident if we'd sorted through Dawson, Evans, Parker, Pinson, etc. and had some kind of a pecking order.

In the meantime, I'd have to pass.

[Cougar]

Originally posted by Chancellor
This should favor Murphy because it is specifically designed to encompass his career.

Most Runs Created, 1976-93
1717 George Brett
1694 Eddie Murray
1589 Dave Winfield
1564 Rickey Henderson
1550 Robin Yount
1447 Andre Dawson
1443 Mike Schmidt
1422 Paul Molitor
1413 Dwight Evans
1338 Wade Boggs
1311 Tim Raines
1291 Dave Parker
1290 Dale Murphy
1270 Lou Whitaker
1269 Jim Rice
1258 Jack Clark
1239 Keith Hernandez

Dawson, Molitor, Evans, Parker, Whitaker, Rice, Clark and Hernandez aren't in either.

Why Murphy instead of one of those?

Well, in a perfect world you wouldn't have to choose. I'd back everyone on that list with the exception of Jack Clark (a really one-dimensional, injury-prone player who falls short in my opinion

Originally posted by Chancellor

Here's some other outfielders, all of whom had more runs created in their career than Murphy:

Selected Outfielders, 1876-2002
1750 Jimmy Ryan
1710 George Van Haltren
1590 Tim Raines
1435 Mike Tiernan
1434 Bob Johnson
1388 Vada Pinson
1360 Jimmy Sheckard
1296 Mike Griffin
1278 George Gore
1277 Brett Butler
1261 Sherry Magee
1228 Paul O'Neill
1219 Fred Lynn
1216 Bobby Bonds
1210 Kip Selbach
1210 Jose Cruz

Wally Moses, Dixie Walker, Doc Cramer, Dave Parker, Willie Davis, Bernie Williams, Reggie Smith, Patsy Donovan and Cy Williams also have more RC than Dale Murphy's total.

This doesn't look right; Murphy has 1290 in the above list, which puts him between Griffin and Gore

Originally posted by Chancellor
It seems pretty clear that Murphy's argument rests in being dominant in the short-term. Over the course of a career, he's overshadowed pretty easily.

I think at the top of the list you've identified some players who have truly been overlooked. I've never liked the Runs Created statistic much -- I think it's a very blunt instrument -- but in this case there's clearly a few tiers. Guys above 1400 or so should be in, period -- they did enough in their careers; it's clear from looking at the names. Between 1200-1400 looks like a borderline area -- you need to look at their year-by-year totals, be more cognizant of fielding, leadership, etc.

Murphy's got a period of dominance like no one else in that group. (Except maybe Magee, who's really been scandalously overlooked.) Plus he scores well on fielding, baserunning, leadership...

[Cougar]

Originally posted by Chancellor
Well...I'm surprised...

Murphy was a dominant player for longer than I previously thought.

Using win shares to examine the relative value of his individual seasons, Murphy's career is broken down below.

For purposes of explanation, let's say that 0 win shares is a player who is replacement level. 1-9 win shares is a scrub, 10-19 is a regular, 20-29 is an all-star level and 30+ is an MVP-type season.

By those measurements, Murphy had the following career:
4 years at an MVP level (1982-85)
3 years at an All-Star level
6 years at a regular level
5 years at a scrub level

While the supporting career doesn't add up to much, 4 years at an MVP level is very, very good (and better than I'd thought.)

On the other hand, Murphy was never once the best player in his league, according to win shares. In 1982, when he won his first MVP, Mike Schmidt was the more valuable performer (according to win shares). In 1983, Pedro Guerrero was equally valuable, while Schmidt (once again) was the best player in the National League.

No shame in being the next best player in the league behind Mike Schmidt, the best of his era.

And I'm guessing Murphy didn't miss 30 win shares by much in 1987 (44 HR, .997 OPS)

Originally posted by Chancellor
Murphy had four years as one of the best players in the game. He had a total of seven years (out of eighteen) playing at or above an all-star level.

Very, very borderline.

He looks better against other center fielders, but I just don't know. Again, I'd feel a lot more confident if we'd sorted through Dawson, Evans, Parker, Pinson, etc. and had some kind of a pecking order.

In the meantime, I'd have to pass.

A pecking order is a different question. Off the top of my head, I'd put Murphy between Dawson and Parker; not sure what I'd do with the other guys.

But looking at Murph in a vacuum, I think he earned the Hall.

He definitely stacks up well against other center fielders, which is part of his case. (And Pinson's, and Andre Dawson -- who played about as much CF as RF.)

[Mulliganfan]

IMO- Murph SHOULD be there, but probably WON'T. He was the hitters version of Jack Morris, although Morris never acheieved the accolades that Murph did.
THEY were the greatest hitting/pitching duo of the '80's.
Will they make it, I doubt it.
Should they? YES!!

[DaleC76]

Originally posted by Cougar

And I'm guessing Murphy didn't miss 30 win shares by much in 1987 (44 HR, .997 OPS)



He had 29 Win Shares in 1987. And 28 in 1980

Murphy also ranks ahead of the average HoFer in Black Ink and Grey Ink, if you're into that (I'm not sure I am, but I don't have much faith in Win Shares either :D).

[NOMAR22]

-18 years, .265 avg, 2,111 hits, 398 HR, 1266 RBI.

-4th player (and the youngest ever) to win consecutive (1982-83) NL MVP awards
-Named to NL All-Star team 7 times (1980, 82-87), 5 as a starter
-Won 5 consecutive (1982-86) Gold Glove awards
-Won 4 consecutive (1982-85) Silver Stick awards
-Won 2 consecutive (1984-85) Mel Ott awards (home run champion)
-Named NL Player Of The Month a record 6 times (Aug. 1980, April 1982, Sept. 1983, Sept. 1984, April 1985, Aug. 1986)
-Became 4th NL player to join the 30/30 club (30 home runs & 30 stolen bases) in 1983
-Became 3rd player to to hit 30 home runs, steal 30 bases, and hit .300 in the same season (Mays, Aaron first two to do so)
-Holds the record for fewest double plays hit into in at least a 150-game season (0 in 1980 and 1985) with many others

-Franchise rankings: Games-3rd, At-Bats - 3rd, Hits-4th, Doubles-3rd, Home Runs-3rd, RBI-3rd, Runs-5th, Total Bases-3rd, Slugging Percentage-8th
-2nd Brave to receive the Gillette Trophy for collecting the most All-Star votes (1.4 million in 1985)
-All-Time Atlanta Braves Leader in games (1,926), at-bats (7,098), runs (1,103), hits (1,901), singles (1,187), doubles (306), home runs (371), runs batted in (1,143), walks (912), total bases (3,394), and extra base hits (714)
-Braves all-time leader in consecutive games played (740 games, 9/26/81 - 7/9/86) and 12th on the all-time list
-Braves franchise leader for most runs in a season (131 in 1983) in the modern era
-5th Brave to have uniform number (3) retired

Murphy was one of the best players for 5 or 6 years in his prime he put up good numbers for his ERA. He's borderline for the Vet committe. I would put Jim Rice, Gil Hodges,Steve Garvey, ahead of Dale Muprphy in the HOF.

[Tigerfan1974]

I don't know if he will, and I am not sure he should or not.
I think he is kind of hung up in that 'Kingman mode', lots of home runs is all most people remember, despite MVP's (Murphy, not Kingman).

[vasprtsfn]

Do I think he should get in? Yes. Do I think he will get in? No.

[iPod]

Murphy was one of the best players for 5 or 6 years in his prime he put up good numbers for his ERA. He's borderline for the Vet committe. I would put Jim Rice, Gil Hodges,Steve Garvey, ahead of Dale Muprphy in the HOF.

Why do you keep doing this? Was it really so vital that you put in your non-comment in this 3 year old thread that you had to drag it to the front page?

[Brad Harris]

I think Murphy is exactly the kind of player who's likely to be elected by the Veterans Committee over the next 10-25 years. One of the better players from an underrepresented era, who looks good compared to the average Hall of Famer at his position and who should get a boost for having starred in the era directly preceeding the "steroid era."

Dawson and Rice are other good examples, though they are more popular candidates and have a better chance with the BBWAA. If they are elected - and they will be eventually - look for Murphy's case to become more prominent.

[dgarza]

Why do you keep doing this? Was it really so vital that you put in your non-comment in this 3 year old thread that you had to drag it to the front page?
I don't anything wrong with people looking back in the archives and commenting. What else are they there for if we can't use them? Old threads are not neccessarily outdated.

NOMAR22's comment is not as much of a "non-comment" as yours or mine. At least NOMAR22 stuck with the topic.

Oh, and I think I agree with Chancellor.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I don't anything wrong with people looking back in the archives and commenting. What else are they there for if we can't use them? Old threads are not neccessarily outdated.

NOMAR22's comment is not as much of a "non-comment" as yours or mine. At least NOMAR22 stuck with the topic.

Oh, and I think I agree with Chancellor.
I think the fact people are commenting on the thread after NOMAR22 revives it shows the topic is still viable. If he was the only one commenting, and no one else did, then it would be a big nuisance. As long as he doesn't insult posters for comments they made three years ago, or post a short, noncommital answer, he's not really doing anything wrong as the guidelines have them.

[Food]

I'm a bit passionate about this one. YES, Dale Murphy should be in!!!

His stats were admittedly borderline, but being two shy of 400 HRs seems to be a bigger hit to his chances than it should be. Most importantly, however, is that he was one of the greatest humanitarians in baseball history, and, by all accounts, a totally nice guy. Character is a part of the qualifications, and I believe that his character pushes his case for entry above borderline.

[Rose4theHall]

Question: If Gary Carter had played on the Braves (or Expos for that matter) his entire career would he have made it in? His lifetime OBP is .335, not really hall-worthy, and Joe Torre and Ted Simmons had more hits/OBP than he did over the same time. Im thinking because of 86 is why Carter made it over those 2 and will be what keeps Dale out.

However,

"6. And if character counts for anything (and it does in the official guidelines), Murphy should be given a whole lot of credit. He is one of the finest men to ever play the game. His presence was important to counterbalance the drug scandals that plagued the early '80's (Murph's prime). Partially due to TBS, but mainly through his own accomplishments, he was one of the very most popular players of his day"

this might play into Dale's favor, he definitely was an upstanding citizen who did no drugs (opposite to: Keith Hernandez) and seeing how there are so few players around today (compared with the past) he looks VERY good compared with all the problems we have around right now.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Do I think he should get in? Yes. Do I think he will get in? No.

Murphy was a guy who everyone thought would be a HOFer early in his career, and his career, up to age 31, is CLEARLY a HOF career.

Murphy began to go downhill at 32, due to injuries. To enshrine Murphy, one would have to use the same argument as one would use for Kirby Puckett; we're putting him in for his best years, and the only thing we're missing here is his decline phase.

There's a big hole in that argument, of course. Puckett's demise was not related to his physical makeup, or how he played the game; it was due to a freak condition (glaucoma) that cost him an eye. Murphy's demise was due to physical maladies that were playing-related, so he loses points for durability.

I would support Murphy on peak value; he was CLEARLY considered on of the very best players in baseball from 1982-87, and he was a deserving double MVP winner. In his best years, he did the kind of things that the best HOFers do. In addition, he was a CENTER fielder in his best years, and a good one.

I also think Murphy will get in someday, either by the VC, or in a weak year. He's MUCH more deserving than Rice or Evans, IMO; about on a par with Santo, Torre, and Simmons.