Andre Dawson

[kbwsb]

<!--quoteo(post=11232:date=Jan 13 2009, 10:58 AM:name=bz)-->QUOTE (bz @ Jan 13 2009, 10:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->1/3 or his career was awesome. The other 2/3...not so much. I guy can't be in if they aren't amazing for a majority of their career.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree with that.
I think a lot of guys in the HOF are there because of their red-hot "peak" years, when they were considered among the very best in the game. If you tail off after that, I think it's perfectly legit to be remembered for the years when you were the best, or among the best.
Almost all players tail off considerably toward the end of their careers. Even Rickey Henderson was pretty darn weak for the last 9 years of his career...and 9 years is a long time.

Dale Murphy is a borderline guy, for sure. But for awhile there, he was one of the best 2 or 3 guys on the planet.

[bz]

<!--quoteo(post=11476:date=Jan 13 2009, 11:50 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Jan 13 2009, 11:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=11232:date=Jan 13 2009, 10:58 AM:name=bz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bz @ Jan 13 2009, 10:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->1/3 or his career was awesome. The other 2/3...not so much. I guy can't be in if they aren't amazing for a majority of their career.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree with that.
I think a lot of guys in the HOF are there because of their red-hot "peak" years, when they were considered among the very best in the game. If you tail off after that, I think it's perfectly legit to be remembered for the years when you were the best, or among the best.
Almost all players tail off considerably toward the end of their careers. Even Rickey Henderson was pretty darn weak for the last 9 years of his career...and 9 years is a long time.

Dale Murphy is a borderline guy, for sure. But for awhile there, he was one of the best 2 or 3 guys on the planet.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Personally, I wouldn't vote him in (but wouldn't care that much if he got voted) because I'm for a greater sense of elitism for the HOF. By that I surely don't mean the disgusting, holier-than-thou, self-important sense of elitism that exists among the voters and the veterans committee today. There's is completely misguided and wrong. I guess quality over quantity is what I'm looking for.

[kbwsb]

OK, Butch, you're in luck; the day after Posnanski wrote his Bloomquist vs. Dunn article, he wrote a long and compelling article about Dale Murphy's HOF case.
(don't worry Ace, I left out chunks of it)

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Now that Jim Rice is in the Baseball Hall of Fame, I want to ask my fellow voters to take a very, very hard look at Dale Murphy. I have waited for a few years now for someone to emerge as the semi-official Hall of Fame spokesman for Dale Murphy … and I have to say with a touch of surprise and disappointment that few have really emerged. Jim Rice has had numerous people in the national media who have boldly spoken up on his behalf. Bert Blyleven has an Internet army of zealots — I consider myself one of these — who press his case. Jack Morris has his disciples, and some pretty big media names have come out swinging lately for Andre Dawson.

And I think that’s right.
But there has been relative silence for Murphy. I have never felt like I should be Dale Murphy’s Paul Revere, shouting his accomplishments as I ride from town to town. I see his flaws too clearly. He absolutely fell off the map after he turned 31 — he hit a miserable .234 the last 2,658 plate appearances of his career. He tried desperately to get to 400 home runs but, tellingly, ended up two homers short. He probably was not the best player in the National League either year that he won the MVP awards. And he, like Rice, relied heavily on a good hitters home park.

Still, Murphy does have a case, a real case. The trouble is, few make that case, and now that Jim Rice has been elected, well, I guess I should speak up. I have very little doubt in my mind that Dale Murphy was a better player than Jim Rice. And there’s also this: Remember what it says … Voting shall be based on:

1. The player’s record (statistical record, I’m sure)
2. Playing ability
<b>3. Integrity
4. Sportsmanship
5. Character</b>
6. Contribution to his team(s)

This is not to say that Jim Rice did not represent these qualities. But I’m not sure anyone of his era better represented those six things than Dale Murphy.

* * *

Career statistics …

Jim Rice and Dale Murphy played at about the same time — Rice is almost exactly three years older than Murphy (Rice was born March 8, 1953; Murphy was born March 12, 1956). And that three year difference holds up for most of their career. Rice played 24 games in 1974 before becoming a regular in ‘75. Murphy played 18 games in 1977 before becoming a regular in 1978. Three years apart.

Rice played his last full year in 1988 and lingered around for 1989. Murphy played his last full year in 1991 and lingered around for two more seasons. Three years apart.

It’s almost a precise match — Rice had 9,058 plate appearances, Murphy had 9,040. You just won’t get much closer than that.

Both men had relatively short career. Both won MVPs. Both were helped tremendously by their home parks. Rice put up about 57.5% of his career OPS value at Fenway Park. Murphy put up about about 56.5% of his career value at the Launching Pad in Atlanta and, briefly, Veteran’s Stadium. Neither one has anything resembling Hall of Fame numbers in visiting parks, though Rice’s .277/.330/.459 on the road is actually a bit better than Murphy’s .250/.324/.440. Rice also played on much better teams, so make whatever adjustments you would like for that.

Rice generally has most of the advantages in career offensive numbers.

J. Rice: .298/.352/.502, 373 doubles, 79 triples, 1,451 RBIs, 1,249 runs, 128 OPS+.

Murphy: .265/.346/.469, 350 doubles, 39 triples, 1,266 RBIs, 1,197 runs, 121 OPS+.

But Murphy does have some parts of his offensive game that hold up very well.

J. Rice: 382 homers, 670 walks, 58 steals, 315 double plays, 6,221 outs, 3,186 times on base, .287 EQA

Murphy: 398 homers, 986 walks, 161 steals, 209 double plays, 6,192 outs, 3,125 times on base, .287 EQA

<!--coloro:#FF0000--><!--/coloro-->Now, remember this is just OFFENSE. Murphy was the superior defensive player who, for most of his career, played center field. And just about every advanced stat I can find that incorporates defense indicates that Murphy was the more valuable player over his career<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc-->:

WARP3
(Baseball Prospectus Wins Above Replacement Player, which incorporates defense)

Rice: 80.2
Murphy: 86.4

Win Shares

Rice: 282
Murphy: 294

BRAR plus FRAR
(Prospectus’ Batting Runs Above Replacement plus Fielding Runs Above Replacement — don’t know if this is a viable statistic, but what the heck?):

Rice: 559 + 102 = 661
Murphy: 565 + 246 = 811

BRAA plus FRAA
(Prospectus’ Batting Runs Above Average plus Fielding Runs Above Average — this helps Rice considerably)

Rice: 290 - 60 = 230
Murphy: 293 - 52 = 241

Here are a few other career achievements for comparison:

Rice: 8 All-Star Games
Murphy: 7 All-Star Games

Rice: 4 All-Star Game Starts.
Murphy: 5 All-Star Game Starts.

Rice: 1 MVP Award.
Murphy: 2 MVP Awards.

Rice: 6 times Top 5 in the MVP balloting.
Murphy: 2 times Top 5 in the MVP balloting.

Rice: 0 Gold Gloves.
Murphy: 5 Gold Gloves.

Rice: 2 Silver Sluggers.
Murphy: 4 Silver Sluggers.

Rice: Led league in slugging (twice), OPS (once), Hits (once), Total bases (four times), Triples (once), Homers (three times), RBIs (twice), OPS+ (once), Times on Base (once). Twice finished in Top 10 in on-base percentage.

Murphy: Led league in slugging (twice), OPS (once), Runs (once), Total bases (once — second twice), Homers (twice), RBIs (twice), Walks (once), Times on Base (once). Five times finished in Top 10 in on-base percentage.

<b>Murphy also won the Lou Gehrig Award in ‘85 and the Roberto Clemente Award in ‘88. Integrity? Sportsmanship? Character? It’s all there.</b>

* * *

Year by year …

It seems to me the more you break down the career statistics of Rice and Murphy, the more clear it becomes that they’re awfully close … I think Murphy’s better when you consider speed and defense. But, as mentioned, both had relatively short careers. Both were finished at 36 (though Murphy sadly came back for those 26 games with Colorado). Rice aged a little better better … he had three very good seasons after his Age 31 year, and a couple of average ones on top. Murphy was pretty much through as a great player after his Age 31 year, and only had two even average seasons after that.

But this leads to my second point: <b>I think Dale Murphy’s peak was higher than Rice’s peak</b>.

Best year

Jim Rice (1978): .315/.370/.600, 46 homers, 139 RBIs, 121 runs, 157 OPS+, .315 EQA, 36 Win Shares
Dale Murphy (1987): .295/.417/.580, 44 homers, 105 RBIs, 115 runs, 157 OPS+, .323 EQA, 29 Win Shares

Rice led the league in triples and homers, a rare double. And he had more runs and RBIs. But Murphy played on a terrible Braves team and had a 47 point advantage in on-base percentage … he walked 115 times. EDGE RICE..

Second best year

Jim Rice (1979): .325/.382/.596, 39 homers, 130 RBIs, 117 runs, 154 OPS+, .310 EQA, 28 Win Shares
Dale Murphy (1983): .302/.393/.540, 36 homers, 121 RBIs, 131 runs, 30 SBs, 149 OPS+, .325 EQA, 32 Win Shares

Rice was just about as good in ‘79 as he was in ‘78. Murphy has an edge in OBP and runs, and this was his 30-30 season. I think Murphy had the better year, but let’s CALL IT A DRAW.

Third best year

Jim Rice (1986): .324/.384/.490, 20 homers, 110 RBIs, 98 runs, 136 OPS+, .300 EQA, 28 Win Shares
Dale Murphy (1985): .300/.388/.539, 37 homers, 111 RBIs, 118 runs, 157 OPS+, .321 EQA, 31 Win Shares

Murphy also won a Gold Glove. EDGE MURPHY.

Fourth best year

Jim Rice (1977): .320/.376/.593, 39 homers, 114 RBIs. 104 runs, 147 OPS+, .304 EQA, 26 Win Shares.
Dale Murphy (1984): .290/.372/.547, 36 homers, 100 RBIs, 94 runs, 149 OPS+, .314 EQA, 33 Win Shares

By Win Shares, this was actually Murphy’s BEST season. Both led the league in slugging. But Murphy won a Gold Glove and added nineteen steals EDGE MURPHY.

Fifth best year

Jim Rice (1983): .304/.361/.550, 39 homers, 126 RBIs, 90 runs, 141 OPS+, .299 EQA, 24 Win Shares
Dale Murphy (1982): .281/.378/.507, 36 homers, 109 RBIs, 113 runs. 142 OPS+, .313 EQA, 32 Win Shares

This was Murphy’s first MVP season. EDGE MURPHY.

Sixth best year

Jim Rice (1982): .309/.375/.494, 24 homers, 97 RBIs, 86 runs, 130 OPS+, .292 EQA, 21 Win Shares
Dale Murphy (1980): .281/.349/.510, 33 homers, 89 RBIs, 98 runs, 135 OPS+, .299 EQA, 28 Win Shares

This time it’s Rice with the on-base average and Murphy with the homer and slugging advantage. I think you give a SLIGHT EDGE MURPHY.

Seventh best year

Jim Rice (1975): .309/.350/.491, 22 homers, 102 RBIs. 92 runs, 127 OPS+, .286 EQA, 20 Win Shares
Dale Murphy (1986): .265/.347/.477, 29 homers, 83 RBIs, 89 runs, 121 OPS+, .285 EQA, 22 Win Shares

Rice’s rookie year. SLIGHT EDGE RICE.

<b>As you can see, except for Rice’s monster 1978 season, Murphy has a Win Shares advantage EVERY SINGLE YEAR, often a sizable one. He has an OPS+ advantage four out of the seven years (with one tie). He leads in Equivalent Average every year except the last one</b>.

This really represents the peak of both men. Neither player had another Win Shares season of 20+ — they both had seven good-to-excellent seasons. But Rice was a better player out of peak — he actually had a few more OK seasons. His next five Win Share seasons are 17, 17, 16, 15, 14.

Murphy, meanwhile, has less to show for the rest of his career. His next five Win Share seasons are 15, 14, 13, 12, 11.

So you could say that Rice was able to hang on as a decent player for longer and with a bit more value. That’s certainly worth something, I guess it’s for each voter to decide how much.

* * *

Conclusion …

I have to admit that I’m quite surprised by the utter lack of Hall of Fame momentum for Dale Murphy. <b>When I look at the stats, it seems clear to me that Dale Murphy was about as good an offensive player as Rice, he was a better overall player, and he had a higher peak. He also matches Rice in pretty much all of the accomplishments, and he’s one of only two Hall of Fame eligibles to win two MVPs and not be elected to the Hall (the other is Roger Maris).</b>

But the reason I’m surprised his Hall of Fame case goes nowhere is the stuff BEYOND the numbers.<b> When Dale Murphy played he was often regarded as the best player in baseball. Jim Rice was never regarded that way</b>. He may have been feared, and he may have been respected, but his defense was much maligned (in fact, his defense only came to be regarded as decent/reasonable after he retired). His teammates didn’t always have nice stuff to say about him. He was slow too.

Murphy meanwhile won those back-to-back MVPs, he was the glamour boy on WTBS, he was Captain America when it became clear that Steve Garvey could not fill the bill. I’m pretty sure he was NOT the best player in baseball to be quite blunt about it, but lots of people felt that way about him. He could run, he played Gold Glove defense in centerfield, he hit with power (Murphy was one of the few right-handed hitters of his time who routinely hit opposite field homers), he was (best we knew) the ideal teammates, he signed every autograph, he considered himself a role model, he was the star of stars.

These were only perceptions, of course, but perceptions matter when it comes to the Hall of Fame. The perception of Bruce Sutter got him into the Hall, not his numbers. The perception of Catfish Hunter got him into the Hall of Fame, not his win total. The perception of Kirby Puckett played a huge role in his Hall of Fame case. And the perception of Jim Rice as this outsized character from the age of disco is a big reason why he has gained 275 Hall of Fame votes over the last 15 years.

So what about Murphy? Where did those perceptions go? I don’t know. I don’t buy into East Coast bias, not at all, but I do buy into the notion that a lot of people remember those Red Sox teams, remember the ‘75 World Series, remember the ‘78 Pennant Race, remember the Buckner Series, remember that great 1977 season and so on. Rice was prominent in all of those (prominent in ‘75 because he was a rookie who did not play in the World Series). And he is remembered.

And Murphy — though he was on television every day back then, he played on such miserable teams (his Braves only winning seasons were ‘82 and ‘83, and he won MVP both years) that the power of the moment has faded with the years. And nobody seems to be singing his song. And he is forgotten.

With Jim Rice’s election, I think a lot of fans — Andre Dawson fans, Dick Allen fans, Frank Howard fans, Dewey Evans fans (of which I’m one), Joe Torre fans, Dave Parker fans, Bernie Williams fans and many others — will come out swinging for their guy. I think that’s only right. None of this is meant to diminish the various problems with Murphy’s Hall of Fame case. But I think his Hall of Fame argument demands a closer look. Now that Jim Rice has been elected, I hope Murphy gets that closer look.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[veryzer]

<!--quoteo(post=11294:date=Jan 13 2009, 01:18 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jan 13 2009, 01:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=11274:date=Jan 13 2009, 12:45 PM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Jan 13 2009, 12:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=11232:date=Jan 13 2009, 10:58 AM:name=bz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bz @ Jan 13 2009, 10:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=11231:date=Jan 13 2009, 10:55 AM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jan 13 2009, 10:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=11229:date=Jan 13 2009, 10:52 AM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Jan 13 2009, 10:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=11227:date=Jan 13 2009, 10:50 AM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jan 13 2009, 10:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=11225:date=Jan 13 2009, 10:43 AM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Jan 13 2009, 10:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=11223:date=Jan 13 2009, 10:42 AM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jan 13 2009, 10:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=11218:date=Jan 13 2009, 10:34 AM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Jan 13 2009, 10:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=11211:date=Jan 13 2009, 10:27 AM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jan 13 2009, 10:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Dale Murphy should be in (and I'm not saying that because he's a Mormon -- at least not entirely).

Look at his years from '80-'87. I think he was hurt in '81, but other than that year, he was an MVP candidate (and won the MVP twice) an All-Star, and a 4-time Silver Slugger.

I think Hawk and Murphy are both right on the border, but should eventually get in.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


'81 was the strike shortened year and i don't think he should get in. had he maintained his excellence for another 3 or 4 years then maybe.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh yeah. I forgot about the strike year. My bust.

Murphy was one of the best players in the game for a solid 8 years in a row -- and was THE BEST player for 2 of those 8. He's in.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

he will never get in. he never comes close and he shouldn't. he isn't deserving and the writers agree. for once they're right. he's out.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, we all have different opinions about what a Hall of Famer should be. Two-time MVP, 7-time All-Star, 4-time Silver Slugger, all with solid defense and a great ambassador for the game. That's a Hall-of-Famer in my book. Plus, in 5 of his non All-Star seasons, he averaged over 20 homers. So, 7 All-Star years, 2 MVP years, and 5 additional seasons with over 20 homers. Yeah...he's in.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


outside of those 5 years, he was average. he's out. history will back that up.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So...7 amazing years, 5 good years, and the rest average and he's out? Wow. Based on that criteria, you want like 10 players, total, in the Hall of Fame. You're the white Joe Morgan.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

1/3 or his career was awesome. The other 2/3...not so much. I guy can't be in if they aren't amazing for a majority of their career.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


thank you bz. you are absolutely right. fortunately the bbwaa agree with us.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes! How fortunate! Thank the heavens that the almighty BBWAA doesn't like Murphy! I mean...what the fuck would we do if Murphy got elected into the Hall of Fucking Fame? I mean...first that happens, next a group of SS troops show up at your doorstep and ass rape your entire family.

By the way, you can't use the BBWAA's opinion to support your argument sometimes and say that they suck all of the other times. "The BBWAA are the biggest bunch of morons for not letting in Santo all these years...but they're spot-on for not voting for Murphy." Sorry. You can't have it both ways.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

hey numbnuts, i never said santo belonged in the hall of fame, ever. god i can't wait til you get off the rag.

[veryzer]

<!--quoteo(post=11297:date=Jan 13 2009, 01:20 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jan 13 2009, 01:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=11281:date=Jan 13 2009, 12:55 PM:name=leonardsipes)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (leonardsipes @ Jan 13 2009, 12:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Dale Murphy was ranked in the top 10 in NL HRs 9 straight years 80-88. If he would have had the same rankings 2000 - 2008, he would have had these HR totals: 47,38,46,45,48,51,45,47,33.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yup. People have forgotten what a monster Murphy was because the of the steroid era. He was one of the best (if not THE best) power hitters of the 80s.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


one of the best? maybe. the best? ever hear of mike schmidt?

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=11509:date=Jan 14 2009, 08:51 AM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Jan 14 2009, 08:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=11297:date=Jan 13 2009, 01:20 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jan 13 2009, 01:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=11281:date=Jan 13 2009, 12:55 PM:name=leonardsipes)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (leonardsipes @ Jan 13 2009, 12:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Dale Murphy was ranked in the top 10 in NL HRs 9 straight years 80-88. If he would have had the same rankings 2000 - 2008, he would have had these HR totals: 47,38,46,45,48,51,45,47,33.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yup. People have forgotten what a monster Murphy was because the of the steroid era. He was one of the best (if not THE best) power hitters of the 80s.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


one of the best? maybe. the best? ever hear of mike schmidt?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Those 2 are FAR closer than you think Tom. Schmidt hit 5 more home runs in the 1980's than Dale Murphy did (313-308). I'd say that's pretty much a tie. Which, again, points to the idea that Dale Murphy is a lot better than people remember.

[cherp]

<!--quoteo(post=11463:date=Jan 13 2009, 10:42 PM:name=Mikey)-->QUOTE (Mikey @ Jan 13 2009, 10:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I liked Dale Murphy.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


If you subscribe to the theory that since ______ is in, then _________ should be, Rice getting in opens the doors wider to a large group of players from the mid 70s to the late 80s. Murphy and Dawson, previously more outside looking in, but with a chance, move up in probability.

Then again, this must just be the east cost media thing. Hawk played in Montreal for a long time, in obscurity, and very well may never get a break. I'm guessing he, like Rice, gets in later in his eligibility. Murph is more a ? for me - but who knows? I hope this still keeps guys like Mattingly, Edgar Martinez and Harold Baines out.

I hate the watering down of the HOF. My HOF would be much smaller than it is today.

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=11509:date=Jan 14 2009, 08:51 AM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Jan 14 2009, 08:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=11297:date=Jan 13 2009, 01:20 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jan 13 2009, 01:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=11281:date=Jan 13 2009, 12:55 PM:name=leonardsipes)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (leonardsipes @ Jan 13 2009, 12:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Dale Murphy was ranked in the top 10 in NL HRs 9 straight years 80-88. If he would have had the same rankings 2000 - 2008, he would have had these HR totals: 47,38,46,45,48,51,45,47,33.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yup. People have forgotten what a monster Murphy was because the of the steroid era. He was one of the best (if not THE best) power hitters of the 80s.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


one of the best? maybe. the best? ever hear of mike schmidt?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's kind of why I said, "He was one of the best (if not THE best) power hitters of the 80s." The statement allows for a little leeway.

[veryzer]

<!--quoteo(post=11518:date=Jan 14 2009, 09:19 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jan 14 2009, 09:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=11509:date=Jan 14 2009, 08:51 AM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Jan 14 2009, 08:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=11297:date=Jan 13 2009, 01:20 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jan 13 2009, 01:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=11281:date=Jan 13 2009, 12:55 PM:name=leonardsipes)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (leonardsipes @ Jan 13 2009, 12:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Dale Murphy was ranked in the top 10 in NL HRs 9 straight years 80-88. If he would have had the same rankings 2000 - 2008, he would have had these HR totals: 47,38,46,45,48,51,45,47,33.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yup. People have forgotten what a monster Murphy was because the of the steroid era. He was one of the best (if not THE best) power hitters of the 80s.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


one of the best? maybe. the best? ever hear of mike schmidt?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Those 2 are FAR closer than you think Tom. Schmidt hit 5 more home runs in the 1980's than Dale Murphy did (313-308). I'd say that's pretty much a tie. Which, again, points to the idea that Dale Murphy is a lot better than people remember.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


the thing is, i don't think murphy sucked. i recognize that for a string of 5 years, he was excellent. no doubt. 5 years does not a hall of fame career make. thats my point. i don't think rice should have gotten in either.

if there was a "hall of very good", murphy would be first ballot along with al oliver, vada pinson, orlando cepeda, bill buckner and others. but none of them is hall of fame worthy and none of them ever will be. and thank fucking god because once you let guys like that in, nazi occupation and rampant ass rape is sure to follow.

[leonardsipes]

As a general rule, 5 excellent seasons do get you into the hall of fame. Sandy Koufax is a good example. I think Murphy's problem is, that when you look at his seasons compared to the modern era, they don't seem excellent. Offense was lower, with the biggest difference being 30 to 40% fewer HRs each season (per team 80 - 86). Compering Murphy to the guys he played with, he had 5 Albert Pujols quality seasons and was a very good player over a 9 year stretch.

[veryzer]

<!--quoteo(post=11551:date=Jan 14 2009, 12:23 PM:name=leonardsipes)-->QUOTE (leonardsipes @ Jan 14 2009, 12:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->As a general rule, 5 excellent seasons do get you into the hall of fame. Sandy Koufax is a good example. I think Murphy's problem is, that when you look at his seasons compared to the modern era, they don't seem excellent. Offense was lower, with the biggest difference being 30 to 40% fewer HRs each season (per team 80 - 86). Compering Murphy to the guys he played with, he had 5 Albert Pujols quality seasons and was a very good player over a 9 year stretch.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


i'm of the minority that koufax doesn't belong in the hall of fame either.

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=11554:date=Jan 14 2009, 12:45 PM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Jan 14 2009, 12:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=11551:date=Jan 14 2009, 12:23 PM:name=leonardsipes)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (leonardsipes @ Jan 14 2009, 12:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->As a general rule, 5 excellent seasons do get you into the hall of fame. Sandy Koufax is a good example. I think Murphy's problem is, that when you look at his seasons compared to the modern era, they don't seem excellent. Offense was lower, with the biggest difference being 30 to 40% fewer HRs each season (per team 80 - 86). Compering Murphy to the guys he played with, he had 5 Albert Pujols quality seasons and was a very good player over a 9 year stretch.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


i'm of the minority that koufax doesn't belong in the hall of fame either.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At least I know I'm dealing with an insane person now. I can put our previous discussion in much better context.

[kbwsb]

[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif[/img]
Thank you for saying what i thought.
Not that tom and Cherp are alone, though...I know a lot of guys who think the HOF should be for Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, Cy Young, Cal Ripken and maybe a few others.
However, it's never really been that way. And if it was, the only guy on our SOI banner who would get in would be <i>maybe</i> Banks.

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=11565:date=Jan 14 2009, 02:25 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Jan 14 2009, 02:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif[/img]
Thank you for saying what i thought.
Not that tom and Cherp are alone, though...I know a lot of guys who think the HOF should be for Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, Cy Young, Cal Ripken and maybe a few others.
However, it's never really been that way. And if it was, the only guy on our SOI banner who would get in would be <i>maybe</i> Banks.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

The point isn't really whether Tom or Cherp are right or wrong, it's simply that if they don't think pretty much ANYONE belongs in the Hall, then it's completely pointless to argue about a specific player.

If you don't think Sandy Koufax deserves to be in, then arguing the minutia of Dale Murphy's skills is utterly and completely irrelevant. OF COURSE you don't think he deserves getting in. If it's your opinion that only the top 40 players in history deserve to be in the Hall, then it's a fools errand to argue whether or not the 100th best guy should get in or not.

I liken it to arguing with my friend, and him explaining all sorts of policy positions as to why he wouldn't vote for Obama, when the truth was he would never vote for ANY Democrat. Arguing policy points was beside the point.

[Giff]

There's actually a reasonable argument that Koufax shouldn't be in the HOF. I don't agree with it, but it's definitely there.