parker vs. murphy

[oscargamblesfro]

who's better? both of these guys, dave parker and dale murphy, were thought of by many as destined for The Hall during their prime, yet neither has made it. Who had the better career and who was better at their peak? I'd say Parker for career , Murphy for the prime...

[Captain Cold Nose]

Two of my favorites growing up. I think Parker was as good at the end of the 70's as Murphy was at the beginning of the 80's. I give a slight edge to Cobra.

[Brooklyn]

First seeing this, my reaction was Murphy. Looking at them more closely, I was surprised at how clsoe they were.

Both were highly thought of in their time, as evident by the following:

All-star games: Each have 7
Gold gloves: Murphy 5, Parker 3
MVP: Muprhy 2, Parker 1
MVP top 3: Murphy 2, Parker 4
MVP top 10: Murphy 4, Parker 6
Ink: Murphy 31 /147, Parker 26/145

the two MVPs had stuck in my head for Murphy, but Parker actually looks better all around than Murphy, with a 1st, 2nd, two thrids and a fifth. Parker also has better counting numbers (except HR), which is party due to a longer career, but when they are this close, the extra numbers certainly help. Murphy's low BA and high strikeout total (Parker was high, but not that high) were also big negatives.

I started thinking Murphy but went with Parker

[Fuzzy Bear]

First seeing this, my reaction was Murphy. Looking at them more closely, I was surprised at how clsoe they were.

Both were highly thought of in their time, as evident by the following:

All-star games: Each have 7
Gold gloves: Murphy 5, Parker 3
MVP: Muprhy 2, Parker 1
MVP top 3: Murphy 2, Parker 4
MVP top 10: Murphy 4, Parker 6
Ink: Murphy 31 /147, Parker 26/145

the two MVPs had stuck in my head for Murphy, but Parker actually looks better all around than Murphy, with a 1st, 2nd, two thrids and a fifth. Parker also has better counting numbers (except HR), which is party due to a longer career, but when they are this close, the extra numbers certainly help. Murphy's low BA and high strikeout total (Parker was high, but not that high) were also big negatives.

I started thinking Murphy but went with Parker

I started thinking Murphy, and kept thinking Murphy.

I would vote for Murphy, but not for Parker. There are a number of reasons why I would:

(A) Parker diminished his career by taking a 4 year "Time Out For Drugs". When he returned from his haze with the Reds, he wasn't the same player he was from 1977-79, when he was, possibly, the best player in baseball. I give him a big penalty for this.

(B) Murphy was a Gold Glove CENTER fielder; he rates a significant positional advantage for this.

(C) Murphy's OBP was .004 better than Parker's, due to superior plate discipline.

(D) Parker DH'd in 484 games; his counting stats would not be what they are without the DH.

(E) Murphy had a bigger impact on his teams winning than Parker. The 1980 Braves improved by 10 games over the 1979 team, and Murphy's emergence as a star was the big factor. The 1982 Braves were a surprise division winner, and Murphy was the MVP. The 1983 Braves were contenders, and Murphy was MVP again. Parker won an MVP in 1978, but was not the best player on the 1979 World Championship team (although the Bucs would not have won without him).

(F) Murphy's peak was longer; from 1980-87, with only one real off season. Parker had a 5 year peak, from 1975-79, but his deciline was, in retrospece, beginning to occur in 1979, and he dipped from a superstar to an ordinary player in 1980.

Parker is the kind of guy that fell from his peak to the degree that the only way he was going to make the HOF is if he held on long enough to get 3,000 hits. He hung on as long as he did only because he could DH, and he was only an ordinary DH at that. Murphy did little to bolster his HOF chances after 1987, and it hurts that he didn't get 2 more HRs to make 400, but he's still a clearly better choice than Parker, once you get beyond counting stats. And in this comparision, I believe that comparing counting stats does not give the best picture of who should and shouldn't be in the Hall.

[leecemark]

--I think that sums it up pretty well FB. Parker had the longer career and accumulated more value, but when you look at the shape of their careers and impact on the game (beyond the numbers) Murphy looks alot better. Parker is arguably the "better" player, but Murphy is more deserving of the Hall of Fame.

[yankillaz]

It's very difficult to choose. But since i regard the best player being the one that dominated the most, i account Murphy for 7 above the average seasons in an 18 year career, as Parker had the same amount in an 20 year career.

[digglahhh]

I voted for Murphy, but Parker is extremely unappreciated. He was Triple Crown threat during his peak.

[baseballPAP]

I had to vote them even....I couldn't decide. Both have a corresponding weakness to match their strength, both had some circumstance to throw in as well..... very good and close comparison. I just don't have much feeling for either player.... and this fact is possibly a mitigating factor that keeps them both out of the Hall.... While both excellent players with long-ish careers, neither left a lasting impression.

[DoubleX]

I give the nod to Murphy due to the CF adjustment. The two MVPs help out as well. My opinion on Murphy has changed a bit in recent weeks. I used have him just on the outside of the Hall, but lately I've been thinking that he deservedly belongs.

[baseballPAP]

Murphy has a curious position among my generation (the old side of the Gen Xers). Some of us ignored him, because we didn't have cable TV and didn't get to see him every night on TBS. Some loved the guy because they DID see him every night. And others didn't like that squeeky-clean boy scout image. Where does that leave him? I'm guessing he'll be one of the lucky ones that eventually gain enough groundswell support to sneak in, as the people who didn't like the boy scout image get old enough to appreciate it for what it was...good character.

[538280]

I give the nod to Murphy due to the CF adjustment. The two MVPs help out as well. My opinion on Murphy has changed a bit in recent weeks. I used have him just on the outside of the Hall, but lately I've been thinking that he deservedly belongs.

The two MVPs are a real nice thing to put on your HOF resume, but IMO he stole both of those MVPs from Mike Schmidt. Parker was a legit MVP in 1978, and finished close several other seasons, also deservedly so. Though Murphy won two awards, Dave had more good seasons and overall the MVP voters were much more impressed with Parker (Parker is 27th in MVP shares, Murphy is 64th). I think using the MVP argument to support Murphy here doesn't make much sense.

Murphy was an okay CFer, not the great one suggested by his Gold Gloves (he probalby won those with his bat). Metrics have shown him to be a slightly below average CFer. Parker may not have been a truly great fielder his whole career, but he was a good one in his prime and he did have a cannon for an arm, with his amazing 26 assists in 1977. Murphy does get the nod for defensive value, but it's not by a ton.

The way I see it-Parker lasted longer and compiled more career value, and he was at least just as good at his peak (I'd probably say he was slightly better). I think Parker was the better player. Parker did go through that mid career crisis, but Murphy also took long to become a great player, having a few 100 or so OPS+ years at the beginnning, and had some not so good years at the end of his career. So I think Murphy had just as many not so great seasons as Parker.

With the HOF, I could see how someone could see Murphy as the more deserving HOFer, though I'm not sure I'd buy the argument. Parker, you could say, insulted the game by going on cocaine, that wouldn't really hurt him in rankings but could hurt his HOF case. Either way, I think both of these men deserve the HOF.

With the HOF, since Parke

[Sockeye]

It's close but I gotta go with Dale Murphy. Back to back MVP awards and perhaps the nicest guy ever to play the game.

[TheJourneyman]

I admit being biased as Murph is my favorite player of all time.

[KCGHOST]

Pretty much a "pick'em" choice. Parker leads the RCAA battle 242 to 192. Murphy wins the WARP3 battle 91.8 to 86.9.

[mtortolero]

Murphy by a hair. In his peak he was the best player in ofensive and defensive terms playing 97% of the games of his teams in a 12 years streak (from 1980 to 1991).An we can argue in favor of Murphy for the 1987 MVP.
Parker is a legend here in Venezuela after being the key factor to win 1977´s Caribean Series.

[brett]

The two MVPs are a real nice thing to put on your HOF resume, but IMO he stole both of those MVPs from Mike Schmidt.

Based on raw value, I'd say that Schmidt might have edged him in '82 and '83, but Murphy carried his team to contention and Schmidt had a better supporting cast.

Also, who would you pick as MVP in '84, '85 and especially '87?

Sandberg and McGee won in '84 and '85 and Carter was strong, as was Schmidt in '84, and Gooden in '85 but Murphy should have been top 4 at least, and wasn't primarily because people got bored voting for him every year and the Braves sank a lot.

And '87, I know you wouldn't pick Dawson. Eric Davis and Jack Clark were awesome-for half the season. Murphy may have put up the best full season in '87.

Anyway, Parker did have 2 peaks and may have been the leading candidate in '85 with a month to go.