|
|
|
#1
06-21-2003, 04:49 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Will Dale Murphy Get In?
-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
__________________
Support Your Local Minor League Baseball Club 
|
|
#2
06-21-2003, 07:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#3
06-21-2003, 08:12 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
|
|
#4
06-21-2003, 08:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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?
|
|
#5
06-21-2003, 11:20 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
|
|
#6
06-21-2003, 12:11 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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: Quote:
__________________
Support Your Local Minor League Baseball Club
|
|
#8
06-22-2003, 08:38 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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
__________________
GO CARDINALS!!!!
|
|
#9
06-22-2003, 10:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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?
|
|
#10
06-22-2003, 05:13 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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
__________________
GO CARDINALS!!!!
|
|
#11
06-22-2003, 08:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#12
06-23-2003, 03:12 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
|
|
#13
06-23-2003, 10:44 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#14
06-23-2003, 10:49 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
|
|
#15
06-23-2003, 11:20 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
|
|
#16
06-23-2003, 11:30 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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...
|
|
#17
06-23-2003, 11:42 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
And I'm guessing Murphy didn't miss 30 win shares by much in 1987 (44 HR, .997 OPS) Quote:
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.)
|
|
#18
06-30-2003, 05:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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!!
__________________
" I like you, Kid. You don't speak unless you've got something to say". Mrs. Edda M. Garfield (teacher) 1941-2002
|
|
#19
07-01-2003, 01:24 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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  ).
__________________
Support Your Local Minor League Baseball Club Last edited by DaleC76; 07-01-2003 at 09:14 PM.
|
|
#20
03-30-2006, 02:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#21
03-30-2006, 06:16 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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).
__________________
1968 and 1984, the greatest ever.
|
|
#23
03-30-2006, 02:19 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"Hall of Famer Whitey Ford now on the field... pleading with the crowd for, for some kind of sanity!"
|
|
#24
03-30-2006, 02:25 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
__________________
No matter what I talk about, I always get back to baseball." -- Connie Mack
|
|
#25
03-31-2006, 06:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Linear Mode
