Announcement

**The Commissioner** · 06-21-2003, 06:12 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.

**yellowdog** · 06-21-2003, 07:12 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.

**The Commissioner** · 06-21-2003, 07:22 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?

**yellowdog** · 06-21-2003, 10:20 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.

**DaleC76** · 06-21-2003, 11:11 AM

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** · 06-21-2003, 12:09 PM

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

**Etheridge2** · 06-22-2003, 07:38 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

**The Commissioner** · 06-22-2003, 09:28 AM

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** · 06-22-2003, 04:13 PM

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** · 06-22-2003, 07:28 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.

**Cougar** · 06-23-2003, 02:12 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.

**Chadwick** · 06-23-2003, 09:44 AM

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.

**Chadwick** · 06-23-2003, 09:49 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.

**Chadwick** · 06-23-2003, 10:20 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.

Announcement

Will Dale Murphy Get In?

Will Dale Murphy Get In?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Ad Widget