<< <i>Now if he had stayed a catcher and had those numbers I think he would be in. >>
Agreed. Maybe even first ballot.
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
<< <i>I can think of at least 35 players that are in that he belongs in before, most notably guys like Bill Mazeroski.
Steve >>
Mazeroski got in because of some back room dealings/handshakes of the veterans committee. Coincidentally, the rules were changes immediately after his induction.
Dont think he [Dale Murphy] belongs in the Hall, granted Im a pirate fan and I dont think Maz deserves to be in either.
As the best defensive second-baseman in the history of baseball, I believe he [Bill Mazeroski] should have been voted in by the writers.
That's why the veteran's committee exists -- to (hopefully) "right" a few "wrongs" of the writers. Sometimes that puts in marginal players -- but I don't think Maz was marginal.
CAREER MLB RECORD, DOUBLE PLAYS-SECOND BASEMAN: 1,706 NL LEADER, ASSISTS: 9 Years NL LEADER, DOUBLE PLAYS: 8 Years MLB RECORD, MOST DOUBLE PLAYS, SEASON: 166 in 1966 WON GOLDEN GLOVE: 8 Years NL ALL-STAR: 7 Years
I freely admit that I am a little bias on this subject. I was the original poster and that was my old ID. I changed internet providers and lost my old password so I just created a new one.
I maybe wrong here, but I believe that the Baseball Digest did a survey of pitchers in the late 80's and asked who was the most feared hitter of the decade. I believe that Murphy just edged out Schmidt or it was vice versa. Either way, he was one of the most dominent hitters of that decade.
I would love to see him inducted and I believe that he will. I think that he is a shoe in with the vet's comm. Being a feared hitter as he was will play well with other players. I just hope that the sportswriters vote him beforehand.
I think Murphy benefits from having a "name", which Darrell Evans, Lynn, etc don't have.
But doesn't mean he's hof worthy. 400 home runs then is probably the equivilent of 550 home runs now. But he doesnt have any single statistic or accomplishment that makes him hof worthy. Mazeroski is at the margins of the hof, although he got in on defense, kind of like ozzie smith.
I freely admit that I am a little bias on this subject. I was the original poster and that was my old ID. I changed internet providers and lost my old password so I just created a new one.
I maybe wrong here, but I believe that the Baseball Digest did a survey of pitchers in the late 80's and asked who was the most feared hitter of the decade. I believe that Murphy just edged out Schmidt or it was vice versa. Either way, he was one of the most dominent hitters of that decade.
I would love to see him inducted and I believe that he will. I think that he is a shoe in with the vet's comm. Being a feared hitter as he was will play well with other players. I just hope that the sportswriters vote him beforehand. >>
Ever since MLB began presenting a MVP award in 1911, only seven times has a player either won his leagues MVP award or led his league in homeruns in four straight years.
1) Frank Baker 1911-14, led the AL in HRs. His best year being 1913 when he tallied 12 round trippers
2) Babe Ruth 1918-1921, led the AL in HRs
3) Babe Ruth 1926-1931, led the Al in HRs
4) Ralph Kiner 1946-1952, led the NL in HRs
5) Mickey Mantle 1955-1958, led the AL in HRs in 55, 56,& 58; won the AL MVP in 56, 57
6) Dale Murphy 1982-1985, won the NL in 82, 83; led the NL in HRs in 84, 85
7) Barry Bonds 2001-2004, Won NL MVP; led NL in HRs in 01
Words from a wise man! Tip of the hat to the OP, another wise man!
Dale Murphy's career Wins Above Replacement (bWAR) - is 44.2, 231st all time. Tied with Carlos Delgado, behind JD Drew, Mike Cameron, Jim Fregosi, and Luis Gonzalez to name some more pretty good players.
Furthermore things like "MVP awards," "CY Youngs," "All Star game appearances" should be rendered meaningless, they are voted on writers and fans who have admitted biases - also why there is so much bickering at HOF time. Dale Murphy's best year statistically was 1987, he finished 11th in the MVP. Also Murphy's 2nd best year was not an MVP season either. It was 1980 when he finished 12th.
By age 32 and 1988 Dale Murphy fell hard off the proverbial cliff. From 1978-1987 he was definitely HOF worthy, but after that he probably wasn't good enough to start, doing so on reputation alone. And 10 years of stats usually don't get you in the Hall.
Dale Murphy's career Wins Above Replacement (bWAR) - is 44.2, 231st all time. Tied with Carlos Delgado, behind JD Drew, Mike Cameron, Jim Fregosi, and Luis Gonzalez to name some more pretty good players.
Furthermore things like "MVP awards," "CY Youngs," "All Star game appearances" should be rendered meaningless, they are voted on writers and fans who have admitted biases - also why there is so much bickering at HOF time. Dale Murphy's best year statistically was 1987, he finished 11th in the MVP. Also Murphy's 2nd best year was not an MVP season either. It was 1980 when he finished 12th.
By age 32 and 1988 Dale Murphy fell hard off the preverbial cliff. From 1978-1987 he was definately HOF worthy, but after that he probably wasn't good enough to start, doing so on reputation alone. And 10 years of stats usually don't get you in the Hall. >>
MVP awards are meaningless? Huh...guess I didn't know that. What you're saying is if he'd hung on for another 5 meaningless years hitting .280 with 20 homers, he'd be a lock right? Then he'd have your magic 500 HRs...If someone was one of the best players in baseball for a decade, it really shouldn't matter if they retire at 35 or if they put up average stats until they are 40 so that some sportswriter will think they have the right career totals. The game of baseball exists for the fans, not for the statisticians. Nobody gives a rats ass about bWAR sqaured or the other stuff you created on your excel spreadsheet. Fans know who makes the game special and who doesn't. For someone to compare Dale Murphy to Luis Gonzales in a HOF conversation makes me wonder if maybe they don't understand what makes the game special or what the FAME in Hall of Fame means either.
edited to soften message. My 2012 resolution was not to sound like a dickhead on psacard.com as often.
<< <i>should have stuck around for 2 more homers - that was the magic number (back then) >>
Dave Kingman and Darrell Evans would object to that.
Anyway, I don't know about Murphy. Many would argue his two MVP's were undeserved and he was an outfielder with an OPS+ of 121 and a WAR of less than 50.
<< <i>The game of baseball exists for the fans, not for the statisticians. >>
I guess those people aren't fans because they like to look a rational discussion and try to have rational answers that easily compare players. You are asking a question of how great a player is and Wins Above Replacement attempts to do that. I'm sorry you'd rather blatantly bash something you know nothing about than attempt to learn before giving it's flaws. Some of which are it's inclusion of defensive metrics that are not perfect. Dale Murphy signing your kids ball or looking like he had fun playing or smiling or not cussing or hitting a home run that one time you went to game isn't how we should put a guy in the HOF or if he was a nice guy. It's about what you do on the field and Murphy's numbers don't merit inclusion.
<< <i>What you're saying is if he'd hung on for another 5 meaningless years hitting .280 with 20 homers, he'd be a lock right? >>
I didn't say that either. But thanks for inferring. Why are you so mad? It's a sports discussion, not whether or not you have to compete in the Hunger Games. And if he was closer to 500 bombs than just shy of 400 he'd probably be closer to inclusion. And the problem with your statement is that he couldn't hang on for 5 meaningless years and do .280 and hit 20 HRs. He tried to hang out. He was done after 88 when he was 32. Had a meh 89, even more of a meh 90, and then 3 bad years to finish his career. It doesn't make him a horrible person, or diminish those 10 years from 1978-1987, it happens to lots of players, it's about to happen to Josh Hamilton (IMHO). What it does do is clearly separate the HOF's from the guys that are a tier below. The voters got this one right.
And meaningless was probably too harsh of a word. But when Dale Murphy has his greatest year in 1987 one that he hits 44 HRs, has an OPS's a cool .997, OPS+ (adjusted for park advantages for easy comparison) of 157 and finishes 11th when the 'MVP' has 49 HRs, .896 OPS, and 130 OPS+ I think the voters messed up.
Michael Young garnered a first place vote in the 2011 AL MVP race. Kinsler, Napoli, Hamilton, Andrus, and Beltre all had better years, more valuable how ever you want to put it, but yet Michael Young gets a first place vote.... So yes I will say a lot of times writers don't know what the hell they're talking about.
Because you don't like advance stats, doesn't mean they're wrong or that people who do aren't fans.
<< <i>By age 32 and 1988 Dale Murphy fell hard off the preverbial cliff. From 1978-1987 he was definately HOF worthy, but after that he probably wasn't good enough to start, doing so on reputation alone. And 10 years of stats usually don't get you in the Hall. >>
I think if you can't spell "definitely" correctly, then your opinions on Dale Murphy don't carry any weight with me (you get a pass on "proverbial" - that's a tough one.) Sorry, but I didn't make the same resolutions as mcadams.
If you must throw out the awards, then throw out all the stats too. Ask any NL player, coach, or manager during the 1980s which opposing player they didn't want to face, both on the field and at the plate. You could've asked them in the early 80s, late 80s, or even today - Dale Murphy will be the top answer, by a significant margin.
<< <i>By age 32 and 1988 Dale Murphy fell hard off the preverbial cliff. From 1978-1987 he was definately HOF worthy, but after that he probably wasn't good enough to start, doing so on reputation alone. And 10 years of stats usually don't get you in the Hall. >>
I think if you can't spell "definitely" correctly, then your opinions on Dale Murphy don't carry any weight with me (you get a pass on "proverbial" - that's a tough one.) Sorry, but I didn't make the same resolutions as mcadams.
If you must throw out the awards, then throw out all the stats too. Ask any NL player, coach, or manager during the 1980s which opposing player they didn't want to face, both on the field and at the plate. You could've asked them in the early 80s, late 80s, or even today - Dale Murphy will be the top answer, by a significant margin. >>
I fixed them for you. I thought this was a message board, not a spelling convention.... As far as your (this is the right 'your,' right?) next point. That means what exactly? He was a tough out? And that means what? And no by the late 80s Dale Murphy was easy to face please go to baseball reference and look at his stats. I'm sorry you have such an aversion to numbers. I'm glad I'm an accountant and would love to have your business.
Which guy would you rather have on your team or rather face.... Player 1 .228/.306/.361/20 HRs/142K's/65 Walks Player 2 .318/.384/.511/21 HRs/71K's/63 Walks
Both 1989, both age 33 season. For the record Player #2 shouldn't have won his MVP either. I'd love to face Player 1. Doesn't hit for average, decent power, doesn't get on base, and strikes out a ton. Sounds like a player others who also don't look at stats and numbers would hate to face.
In the 1800s everyone was sure leeches and bleeding people were the only way to treat people. Why are you so against looking at stats and numbers to provide a broader picture of how good or not good a particular player is? It's just another measuring tool one that is far more accurate than the eye test.
<< <i>I'm glad I'm an accountant and would love to have your business. >>
Well that explains your posts and love of stats. I love stats and numbers too, but after one semester as an accounting major, I realized that businesses have to look beyond the numbers. Accountants think there is one answer and one answer only. That's where us finance/investments majors step in to run the show. We know numbers can lie and don't tell the whole truth.
Then I took my $100K+ degree, applied everything I learned, and became a card dealer.
<< <i>I'm glad I'm an accountant and would love to have your business. >>
Well that explains your posts and love of stats. I love stats and numbers too, but after one semester as an accounting major, I realized that businesses have to look beyond the numbers. Accountants think there is one answer and one answer only. That's where us finance/investments majors step in to run the show. We know numbers can lie and don't tell the whole truth.
Then I took my $100K+ degree, applied everything I learned, and became a card dealer. >>
When I have I said numbers are the end all be all? I even said there were flaws in WAR. You come across as someone who doesn't understand - by your choice - I'm not saying you're not smart enough and therefore blasts the advance metrics. But I've also thrown things out like OPS, HRs, OBP, etc. Those aren't advance metrics. That's what a certain player did.
I also hate this - "Accountants think there is one answer and one answer only." Of course businesses have to look beyond the numbers, but the bottom line often drives what you do. You have no idea what I think or what I feel or what I do. I do people's taxes, I work for an accounting firm and often times there is only 1 answer when you're putting numbers on the form. There so many things people should look at stats wise. WAR is by no means the end all be all stat - there isn't one. Just another piece that helps us get to an ultimate answer.
<< <i> You are asking a question of how great a player is and Wins Above Replacement attempts to do that.
<< <i>
You have fallen into the same trap as several other stat sheet junkies that post here from time to time. You have personally decided to replace the Hall of Fame with the Hall of Excel Spreadsheet Acheivement. I suggest you go look up the word "Fame" and noodle for a while on what that word means. Before you are finished, ask yourself if Ozzie Smith is more famous today because he did a backflip while running to position or because of his WAR stats?
<< <i> I'm sorry you'd rather blatantly bash something you know nothing about than attempt to learn before giving it's flaws.
<< <i>
Kid, just because I don't agree with your reliance on some metrics, don't presume that I don't understand them. Learning a calculation is 1% of the process, understanding when to use said metric is the other 99%. You clearly have the first 1% down cold.
<< <i> Dale Murphy signing your kids ball or looking like he had fun playing or smiling or not cussing or hitting a home run that one time you went to game isn't how we should put a guy in the HOF or if he was a nice guy. It's about what you do on the field and Murphy's numbers don't merit inclusion.
<< <i>
This is another example of you attempting to re-purpose the Hall of Fame into the Hall of Excel Spreadsheet Stardom. The Hall of FAME (please go look this up and think about the word for a while) and the game of baseball exist for the fan and only the fan. People don't go to the park to see someone demonstrate the adjusted square root of OPS divided by WAR+. If you're making the game that complicated, you're missing the point. People go to the park to be entertained and watch their favorite players and teams do well. Sometimes, fans are drawn to certain teams or players for reasons that your spreadsheet can't measure. But you can't say that intangibles simply don't exist or don't matter. The fans dictate what matters- not your calculation.
<< <i>This is another example of you attempting to re-purpose the Hall of Fame into the Hall of Excel Spreadsheet Stardom. The Hall of FAME (please go look this up and think about the word for a while) and the game of baseball exist for the fan and only the fan. People don't go to the park to see someone demonstrate the adjusted square root of OPS divided by WAR+. If you're making the game that complicated, you're missing the point. People go to the park to be entertained and watch their favorite players and teams do well. Sometimes, fans are drawn to certain teams or players for reasons that your spreadsheet can't measure. But you can't say that intangibles simply don't exist or don't matter. The fans dictate what matters- not your calculation. >>
So I'm not a fan because of my use of numbers....Don't talk down to me about how I should or shouldn't be a fan it comes across as rude. Also this characterization is drastically overblown - when I'm at a Rangers game (which is waaaayy more than I should since I don't how to be a fan or shouldn't be) I don't have my calculator out. I'm doing the same thing everyone else is - getting hung up on 1 pitch or whether a guy gets it done in the clutch. Those things tend to get washed out over the course of the season and while they're important at that instance in the game, over the course of 162 it probably didn't matter or it evened out. The thing about advance metrics that people often get wrong it's not suppose to say well this batter doesn't hit lefties in the daytime after the 3rd inning with 2 outs, pinch hit for him. You've got to have a large sample size, often more than one year to use the data effectively and correctly. I have never said intangibles don't matter, but at the same time this is baseball, not football, not basketball, not hockey. You can't will your team to win, IMHO. You can't rally behind on guy in the sense you can in a more emotional sport, like football. That's because of the individual nature of baseball within the team game. I do not believe in momentum because how one batter does will not affect how the next batter performs. - I will predict right now you will take issue with this.
I too go to the park to be entertained and watch the Rangers do well. I too like a player that I can't really explain - Colby Lewis. Ozzie Smith is most famous for his defensive skills not his flip. To me fame is the top 1% of the game, the truly great of the great. For guys like Ruth, Gehrig, Seaver, Ryan, Mays there is no debate. Everyone can see it. For guys like Bonds, McGwire, Palmeiro, Clemens the debate kicks in with steroids. For guys like Murphy, Lynn, Dawson, Rice, Whitaker, Trammell - the fringe guys on both sides of the equation that's were an advance metric or two might better help solve the puzzle if player X should be in the Hall of Fame. Again I don't know why you are so angry or at least you are coming across that way? My apologies if you're not. If someone has a different methodology I would think people as baseball fans would be interested in learning about it. I mean even the writers are starting to pay attention from Olney even on up to Gammons. Look at the 2010 AL Cy Young.
We're never going to agree. It would be best to stop trying to change each others minds. And for the record I'm not trying to get you to ignore intangibles, rather just look at and acknowledge there are other ways to measure a player that might help you make a more informed decision. Also OPS really as an advanced stat.... It's the addition of two numbers - on base and slugging. I didn't realize that was that advanced.
For the record, I am not angry about any of this. And yes, I absolutely believe that momentum and emotions both exist in baseball and consistently play a role in the outcomes of games. I am glad to hear that you value intangibles somewhat. Glad we have that common ground. Perhaps the HOF should be split into 2 wings- 1 area could be for the players that were statistical heroes, the other area could be for players that actuallly drove fans to the ballpark (eg the Fan Appreciation Wing). Guys like Tim Raines and other players that no one would ever dream of paying money to see play, would not be welcome in Wing #2.
After reading this thread, I've come to two conclusions:
1. Dale Murphy has a number of zealous fans.
2. Dale Murphy will need to buy a ticket to get into the HOF.
Edit to add: And third, where is Skinpinch???
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Advance stats make more of a case that Tim Raines should go in the Hall of Fame.....it's not just for the Kevin Brown's of the world and against the Jack Morris's and Dale Murphy's.
Mark Fidrych and Jeremy Lin drove people to games too, lets put them up for enshrinement.
Another reason 'stat guys' get this venom spewed on them, is I just pooped all over Dale Murphy and why there is no way he deserves to be in the HOF. You were obviously a fan and enjoyed watching him play. That doesn't mean Dale Murphy wasn't great. Dale Murphy was one hell of a ballplayer and I hope he got paid with the likes of Schmidt, Morris, Carter, Valenzuela, and all the other studs of the 80s. There is an argument that Dale Murphy was one of the top 5 players for the entire decade. For baseball as a whole Dale Murphy is certainly in the top 5, hell maybe 3 to 1.5% of players to ever play the game. But Dale Murphy is not in that elite, elite, elitist of classes that gets to go to Cooperstown. And I get that you loved watching him play the game, because he did it the right way. I like all of those things too. I really do. I enjoy that.
One of my favorite players to watch is Adrian Beltre. He always does things to make me smile. If the pitch is inside and he takes, he almost dances in place, running his feet up and down. He'll hit a couple HRs a year off one knee, even did it in game 5 of the World Series off Chris Carpenter (last time I enjoyed baseball...). If there are 2 outs runners on 1st and 2nd and the ball gets hit to him, he doesn't throw to first, he will stand in the base line and have the biggest smile on his face. And just thinking about it makes me smile. He has always been one of my all time favorite players for the way he plays - hard, but always has a good time, always enjoying himself. So yes those that like stats can enjoy the nuance of it all. Now in 10-15 years when Beltre who will probably be very close to 3,000 hits, around 400 home runs, and played one hell of third base throughout his career will be up for the hall of fame and probably have a debatable entry. All the things that I just mentioned - while I love shouldn't go into the equation. The Hall of Fame to me is about the production you have on the field.
It's this kind of stuff that gets him in the Hall...
Here's why I don't think there is momentum in baseball, at least from an offensive standpoint, I do believe that pitchers can get on a roll and get in a groove. Lets take the Rangers lineup for example. Ian Kinsler leads off, Elvis Andrus bats second, and Josh Hamilton hits third. How does Kinsler's at bat affect Andrus's? I mean sure the defense is going to play differently, the signs might be different, Andrus might be pitched to differently. But if Kinsler gets a hit how does this change the outcome of Andrus's at bat. I'm not trying to be an ass here either - I legitimately can't think of one way that one outcome causes the next outcome to change. I'm all ears if there is. So if the Rangers are down 3 runs and all of sudden 8 guys in a row get hits I don't think that was momentum swinging; that 8 guys in a row getting hits.
<< <i>After reading this thread, I've come to two conclusions:
1. Dale Murphy has a number of zealous fans.
2. Dale Murphy will need to buy a ticket to get into the HOF.
Edit to add: And third, where is Skinpinch??? >>
After reading this comment, I have 3 observations:
1. Grote's passion for the NY Mets is of HOF quality.
2. This year's Mets team will be very competitive. By competitive, I mean that they will fight like hell to avoid being the worst team in the history of baseball.
3. Even after plastic surgery, Jon Neise is still the ugliest pitcher in the NL East.
3. Even after plastic surgery, Jon Neise is still the ugliest pitcher in the NL East.
Well, I guess it could be worse--he could be the ugliest pitcher in the NL or in MLB..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Ever since MLB began presenting a MVP award in 1911, only seven times has a player either won his leagues MVP award or led his league in homeruns in four straight years.
1) Frank Baker 1911-14, led the AL in HRs. His best year being 1913 when he tallied 12 round trippers
2) Babe Ruth 1918-1921, led the AL in HRs
3) Babe Ruth 1926-1931, led the Al in HRs
4) Ralph Kiner 1946-1952, led the NL in HRs
5) Mickey Mantle 1955-1958, led the AL in HRs in 55, 56,& 58; won the AL MVP in 56, 57
6) Dale Murphy 1982-1985, won the NL in 82, 83; led the NL in HRs in 84, 85
7) Barry Bonds 2001-2004, Won NL MVP; led NL in HRs in 01
<< <i>...2. This year's Mets team will be very competitive. By competitive, I mean that they will fight like hell to avoid being the worst team in the history of baseball......... >>
Dale Murphy was not only a great baseball player but a class act and great spokesperson for the game. Top notch guy. I put him 3rd on my list of HOF snubs behind only Keith Hernandez and Tim Raines
The Clockwork Angel Collection...brought to you by Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Chase TheClockworkAngelCollection
He should make it in a few years. The pool for really great players is drying up as we enter the steroid years. He was really good, but not great. I think Raines is another one, pretty darn good, pretty strong BA. But the greats, who is left?
CURRENT PROJECTS IN WORK: To be honest, no direction, but... 1966-69 Topps EX+ 1975 minis NrMt Kelloggs PSA 9 All Topps Heritage-Master Sets
Love this thread, it has all three of my user names.
1) Dale Murphy collector, lost it when I switched Internet providers and lost my email address
2) CrimsonTider, lost it when I had a flame out with GumbyFan
3) LodiBrewFan, a straight up alt to attempt to mess with GumbyFan, but then decided that messing with someone who I really didn't know was really stupid, so now I am stuck with this silly username.
4) Due to the utter awesomeness of Nick Saban, the CU powers-that-be should give me back CrimsonTider
5) I would ask Carol but I think she now works some where else.
6) Dale Murphy and Nick Saban both have statues outside of their respective stadiums, just saying.
7) I miss having Bill here, some thought he was a jackwad, but I liked tormenting any LSU fan. 2011 third in the SEC, but NATIONAL CHAMPS!!! Suck it Bill!
<< <i>If Jim Rice and Tony Perez are in the Hall of Fame then Dale Murphy should be . >>
I don't necessarily disagree with that analogy, but if your argument for induction for the guy you're advocating for is that he may be better than two of the lowest level HOFers, I'm not sure that is a very compelling or persuasive argument..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I'm not sure that Jim Rice is as close to the bottom as you believe. Rice just wasn't as good as he was made out to be during his playing years, but he was a strong hitter. That being said, Murphy's numbers don't dwarf Rice's numbers in any way. Offensively, I think I would take Rice's career.
<< <i>I'm not sure that Jim Rice is as close to the bottom as you believe. Rice just wasn't as good as he was made out to be during his playing years, but he was a strong hitter. That being said, Murphy's numbers don't dwarf Rice's numbers in any way. Offensively, I think I would take Rice's career. >>
All you gotta do is look at Rice's road numbers to see he's a low, low-level hall of famer.
I think he should be in without looking at the numbers but then again I think Mattingly should be in. Honestly I would rather have them over Biggio but voting doesn't work that way.
It always surprised me how little support Murphy got. He was the best player in the NL for much of the 80s with multiple MVPs and a good guy image that has sustained. I've always felt that players from his period, just before the steroid era, have been unfairly looked down on due to comparisons to the era that followed. If you remember, 87 was also considered a juiced ball year, though you don't see that mentioned much today.
I know he had the cocaine issue and atypical power for a first baseman, but Keith Hernandez was also an MVP, maybe the best fielder ever at the position, and an incredibly clutch hitter and player and has also never had much support.
<< <i>It always surprised me how little support Murphy got. He was the best player in the NL for much of the 80s with multiple MVPs and a good guy image that has sustained. I've always felt that players from his period, just before the steroid era, have been unfairly looked down on due to comparisons to the era that followed. If you remember, 87 was also considered a juiced ball year, though you don't see that mentioned much today. >>
The problem for Murphy is that he really wasn't much outside of his 82-87 run. Good in 80, terrible after 87.
<< <i> I know he had the cocaine issue and atypical power for a first baseman, but Keith Hernandez was also an MVP, maybe the best fielder ever at the position, and an incredibly clutch hitter and player and has also never had much support. >>
He had the same career as John Olerud and nobody is asking Olerud to get in the HOF.
I remember when cable first came to our neighborhood in the early 80s and he was regularly playing on TBS. I'd watch Braves games before the Giants or A's games came on. He was probably the first "star" from outside my local market that I got to see play regularly. That's probably an influential factor for my opinion, which is already somewhat loose in regards to the Hall. Combined with some of his best years.
52-90 All Sports, Mostly Topps, Mostly HOF, and some assorted wax.
Comments
<< <i>Now if he had stayed a catcher and had those numbers I think he would be in. >>
Agreed. Maybe even first ballot.
<< <i>I can think of at least 35 players that are in that he belongs in before, most notably guys like Bill Mazeroski.
Steve >>
Mazeroski got in because of some back room dealings/handshakes of the veterans committee. Coincidentally, the rules were changes immediately after his induction.
<< <i>
<< <i>I agree (of course). Murph belongs because of how he was on AND off the field. A class act through and through. >>
No one is arguing with his off the field image. However the Hall of Fame is based on baseball accomplishments and not life accomplishments.
J >>
Exactly.
As the best defensive second-baseman in the history of baseball, I believe he [Bill Mazeroski] should have been voted in by the writers.
That's why the veteran's committee exists -- to (hopefully) "right" a few "wrongs" of the writers. Sometimes that puts in marginal players -- but I don't think Maz was marginal.
CAREER MLB RECORD, DOUBLE PLAYS-SECOND BASEMAN: 1,706
NL LEADER, ASSISTS: 9 Years
NL LEADER, DOUBLE PLAYS: 8 Years
MLB RECORD, MOST DOUBLE PLAYS, SEASON: 166 in 1966
WON GOLDEN GLOVE: 8 Years
NL ALL-STAR: 7 Years
Still holds four all-time defensive records.
Always plenty of PSA-graded cards in my ebay store -- https://ebay.com/str/thelumbercompanysportscards
I freely admit that I am a little bias on this subject. I was the original poster and that was my old ID. I changed internet providers and lost my old password so I just created a new one.
I maybe wrong here, but I believe that the Baseball Digest did a survey of pitchers in the late 80's and asked who was the most feared hitter of the decade. I believe that Murphy just edged out Schmidt or it was vice versa. Either way, he was one of the most dominent hitters of that decade.
I would love to see him inducted and I believe that he will. I think that he is a shoe in with the vet's comm. Being a feared hitter as he was will play well with other players. I just hope that the sportswriters vote him beforehand.
But doesn't mean he's hof worthy. 400 home runs then is probably the equivilent of 550 home runs now. But he doesnt have any single statistic or accomplishment that makes him hof worthy. Mazeroski is at the margins of the hof, although he got in on defense, kind of like ozzie smith.
<< <i>I had dig this old thread up just for fun.
I freely admit that I am a little bias on this subject. I was the original poster and that was my old ID. I changed internet providers and lost my old password so I just created a new one.
I maybe wrong here, but I believe that the Baseball Digest did a survey of pitchers in the late 80's and asked who was the most feared hitter of the decade. I believe that Murphy just edged out Schmidt or it was vice versa. Either way, he was one of the most dominent hitters of that decade.
I would love to see him inducted and I believe that he will. I think that he is a shoe in with the vet's comm. Being a feared hitter as he was will play well with other players. I just hope that the sportswriters vote him beforehand. >>
I think we found an ALT.
1) Frank Baker 1911-14, led the AL in HRs. His best year being 1913 when he tallied 12 round trippers
2) Babe Ruth 1918-1921, led the AL in HRs
3) Babe Ruth 1926-1931, led the Al in HRs
4) Ralph Kiner 1946-1952, led the NL in HRs
5) Mickey Mantle 1955-1958, led the AL in HRs in 55, 56,& 58; won the AL MVP in 56, 57
6) Dale Murphy 1982-1985, won the NL in 82, 83; led the NL in HRs in 84, 85
7) Barry Bonds 2001-2004, Won NL MVP; led NL in HRs in 01
Words from a wise man!
Tip of the hat to the OP, another wise man!
Dale Murphy's career Wins Above Replacement (bWAR) - is 44.2, 231st all time. Tied with Carlos Delgado, behind JD Drew, Mike Cameron, Jim Fregosi, and Luis Gonzalez to name some more pretty good players.
Furthermore things like "MVP awards," "CY Youngs," "All Star game appearances" should be rendered meaningless, they are voted on writers and fans who have admitted biases - also why there is so much bickering at HOF time. Dale Murphy's best year statistically was 1987, he finished 11th in the MVP. Also Murphy's 2nd best year was not an MVP season either. It was 1980 when he finished 12th.
By age 32 and 1988 Dale Murphy fell hard off the proverbial cliff. From 1978-1987 he was definitely HOF worthy, but after that he probably wasn't good enough to start, doing so on reputation alone. And 10 years of stats usually don't get you in the Hall.
What I'm selling
Building Sets, Collecting Texas Rangers, and Texas Tech Red Raiders
<< <i>It's not the Hall of Very Good.
Dale Murphy's career Wins Above Replacement (bWAR) - is 44.2, 231st all time. Tied with Carlos Delgado, behind JD Drew, Mike Cameron, Jim Fregosi, and Luis Gonzalez to name some more pretty good players.
Furthermore things like "MVP awards," "CY Youngs," "All Star game appearances" should be rendered meaningless, they are voted on writers and fans who have admitted biases - also why there is so much bickering at HOF time. Dale Murphy's best year statistically was 1987, he finished 11th in the MVP. Also Murphy's 2nd best year was not an MVP season either. It was 1980 when he finished 12th.
By age 32 and 1988 Dale Murphy fell hard off the preverbial cliff. From 1978-1987 he was definately HOF worthy, but after that he probably wasn't good enough to start, doing so on reputation alone. And 10 years of stats usually don't get you in the Hall. >>
MVP awards are meaningless? Huh...guess I didn't know that. What you're saying is if he'd hung on for another 5 meaningless years hitting .280 with 20 homers, he'd be a lock right? Then he'd have your magic 500 HRs...If someone was one of the best players in baseball for a decade, it really shouldn't matter if they retire at 35 or if they put up average stats until they are 40 so that some sportswriter will think they have the right career totals. The game of baseball exists for the fans, not for the statisticians. Nobody gives a rats ass about bWAR sqaured or the other stuff you created on your excel spreadsheet. Fans know who makes the game special and who doesn't. For someone to compare Dale Murphy to Luis Gonzales in a HOF conversation makes me wonder if maybe they don't understand what makes the game special or what the FAME in Hall of Fame means either.
edited to soften message. My 2012 resolution was not to sound like a dickhead on psacard.com as often.
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
<< <i>should have stuck around for 2 more homers - that was the magic number (back then) >>
Dave Kingman and Darrell Evans would object to that.
Anyway, I don't know about Murphy. Many would argue his two MVP's were undeserved and he was an outfielder with an OPS+ of 121 and a WAR of less than 50.
<< <i> I don't know about Murphy. Many would argue his two MVP's were undeserved >>
Contridiction within two sentences!
Almost impossible to do!
OPS+
Murphy 142
Schmidt 161
WAR
Murphy 6.3
Schmidt 7.9
1983
OPS+
Murphy 149
Schmidt 156
WAR
Murphy 7.2
Schmidt 7.7
<< <i>The game of baseball exists for the fans, not for the statisticians. >>
I guess those people aren't fans because they like to look a rational discussion and try to have rational answers that easily compare players. You are asking a question of how great a player is and Wins Above Replacement attempts to do that. I'm sorry you'd rather blatantly bash something you know nothing about than attempt to learn before giving it's flaws. Some of which are it's inclusion of defensive metrics that are not perfect. Dale Murphy signing your kids ball or looking like he had fun playing or smiling or not cussing or hitting a home run that one time you went to game isn't how we should put a guy in the HOF or if he was a nice guy. It's about what you do on the field and Murphy's numbers don't merit inclusion.
<< <i>What you're saying is if he'd hung on for another 5 meaningless years hitting .280 with 20 homers, he'd be a lock right? >>
I didn't say that either. But thanks for inferring. Why are you so mad? It's a sports discussion, not whether or not you have to compete in the Hunger Games. And if he was closer to 500 bombs than just shy of 400 he'd probably be closer to inclusion. And the problem with your statement is that he couldn't hang on for 5 meaningless years and do .280 and hit 20 HRs. He tried to hang out. He was done after 88 when he was 32. Had a meh 89, even more of a meh 90, and then 3 bad years to finish his career. It doesn't make him a horrible person, or diminish those 10 years from 1978-1987, it happens to lots of players, it's about to happen to Josh Hamilton (IMHO). What it does do is clearly separate the HOF's from the guys that are a tier below. The voters got this one right.
And meaningless was probably too harsh of a word. But when Dale Murphy has his greatest year in 1987 one that he hits 44 HRs, has an OPS's a cool .997, OPS+ (adjusted for park advantages for easy comparison) of 157 and finishes 11th when the 'MVP' has 49 HRs, .896 OPS, and 130 OPS+ I think the voters messed up.
Michael Young garnered a first place vote in the 2011 AL MVP race. Kinsler, Napoli, Hamilton, Andrus, and Beltre all had better years, more valuable how ever you want to put it, but yet Michael Young gets a first place vote.... So yes I will say a lot of times writers don't know what the hell they're talking about.
Because you don't like advance stats, doesn't mean they're wrong or that people who do aren't fans.
What I'm selling
Building Sets, Collecting Texas Rangers, and Texas Tech Red Raiders
<< <i>By age 32 and 1988 Dale Murphy fell hard off the preverbial cliff. From 1978-1987 he was definately HOF worthy, but after that he probably wasn't good enough to start, doing so on reputation alone. And 10 years of stats usually don't get you in the Hall. >>
I think if you can't spell "definitely" correctly, then your opinions on Dale Murphy don't carry any weight with me (you get a pass on "proverbial" - that's a tough one.) Sorry, but I didn't make the same resolutions as mcadams.
If you must throw out the awards, then throw out all the stats too. Ask any NL player, coach, or manager during the 1980s which opposing player they didn't want to face, both on the field and at the plate. You could've asked them in the early 80s, late 80s, or even today - Dale Murphy will be the top answer, by a significant margin.
Reed Kasaoka
Buyer, Baseball Card Exchange
cell: (808) 372-1974
email: ReedBBCE@gmail.com
website: www.bbce.com
eBay stores: bbcexchange, bbcexchange2, bbcexchange3, bbcexchange4
<< <i>
<< <i>By age 32 and 1988 Dale Murphy fell hard off the preverbial cliff. From 1978-1987 he was definately HOF worthy, but after that he probably wasn't good enough to start, doing so on reputation alone. And 10 years of stats usually don't get you in the Hall. >>
I think if you can't spell "definitely" correctly, then your opinions on Dale Murphy don't carry any weight with me (you get a pass on "proverbial" - that's a tough one.) Sorry, but I didn't make the same resolutions as mcadams.
If you must throw out the awards, then throw out all the stats too. Ask any NL player, coach, or manager during the 1980s which opposing player they didn't want to face, both on the field and at the plate. You could've asked them in the early 80s, late 80s, or even today - Dale Murphy will be the top answer, by a significant margin. >>
I fixed them for you. I thought this was a message board, not a spelling convention.... As far as your (this is the right 'your,' right?) next point. That means what exactly? He was a tough out? And that means what? And no by the late 80s Dale Murphy was easy to face please go to baseball reference and look at his stats. I'm sorry you have such an aversion to numbers. I'm glad I'm an accountant and would love to have your business.
Which guy would you rather have on your team or rather face....
Player 1 .228/.306/.361/20 HRs/142K's/65 Walks
Player 2 .318/.384/.511/21 HRs/71K's/63 Walks
Both 1989, both age 33 season. For the record Player #2 shouldn't have won his MVP either. I'd love to face Player 1. Doesn't hit for average, decent power, doesn't get on base, and strikes out a ton. Sounds like a player others who also don't look at stats and numbers would hate to face.
In the 1800s everyone was sure leeches and bleeding people were the only way to treat people. Why are you so against looking at stats and numbers to provide a broader picture of how good or not good a particular player is? It's just another measuring tool one that is far more accurate than the eye test.
What I'm selling
Building Sets, Collecting Texas Rangers, and Texas Tech Red Raiders
<< <i>I'm glad I'm an accountant and would love to have your business. >>
Well that explains your posts and love of stats. I love stats and numbers too, but after one semester as an accounting major, I realized that businesses have to look beyond the numbers. Accountants think there is one answer and one answer only. That's where us finance/investments majors step in to run the show. We know numbers can lie and don't tell the whole truth.
Then I took my $100K+ degree, applied everything I learned, and became a card dealer.
Reed Kasaoka
Buyer, Baseball Card Exchange
cell: (808) 372-1974
email: ReedBBCE@gmail.com
website: www.bbce.com
eBay stores: bbcexchange, bbcexchange2, bbcexchange3, bbcexchange4
IMF
<< <i>
<< <i>I'm glad I'm an accountant and would love to have your business. >>
Well that explains your posts and love of stats. I love stats and numbers too, but after one semester as an accounting major, I realized that businesses have to look beyond the numbers. Accountants think there is one answer and one answer only. That's where us finance/investments majors step in to run the show. We know numbers can lie and don't tell the whole truth.
Then I took my $100K+ degree, applied everything I learned, and became a card dealer. >>
When I have I said numbers are the end all be all? I even said there were flaws in WAR. You come across as someone who doesn't understand - by your choice - I'm not saying you're not smart enough and therefore blasts the advance metrics. But I've also thrown things out like OPS, HRs, OBP, etc. Those aren't advance metrics. That's what a certain player did.
I also hate this - "Accountants think there is one answer and one answer only." Of course businesses have to look beyond the numbers, but the bottom line often drives what you do. You have no idea what I think or what I feel or what I do. I do people's taxes, I work for an accounting firm and often times there is only 1 answer when you're putting numbers on the form. There so many things people should look at stats wise. WAR is by no means the end all be all stat - there isn't one. Just another piece that helps us get to an ultimate answer.
What I'm selling
Building Sets, Collecting Texas Rangers, and Texas Tech Red Raiders
<< <i> You are asking a question of how great a player is and Wins Above Replacement attempts to do that.
<< <i>
You have fallen into the same trap as several other stat sheet junkies that post here from time to time. You have personally decided to replace the Hall of Fame with the Hall of Excel Spreadsheet Acheivement. I suggest you go look up the word "Fame" and noodle for a while on what that word means. Before you are finished, ask yourself if Ozzie Smith is more famous today because he did a backflip while running to position or because of his WAR stats?
<< <i> I'm sorry you'd rather blatantly bash something you know nothing about than attempt to learn before giving it's flaws.
<< <i>
Kid, just because I don't agree with your reliance on some metrics, don't presume that I don't understand them. Learning a calculation is 1% of the process, understanding when to use said metric is the other 99%. You clearly have the first 1% down cold.
<< <i> Dale Murphy signing your kids ball or looking like he had fun playing or smiling or not cussing or hitting a home run that one time you went to game isn't how we should put a guy in the HOF or if he was a nice guy. It's about what you do on the field and Murphy's numbers don't merit inclusion.
<< <i>
This is another example of you attempting to re-purpose the Hall of Fame into the Hall of Excel Spreadsheet Stardom. The Hall of FAME (please go look this up and think about the word for a while) and the game of baseball exist for the fan and only the fan. People don't go to the park to see someone demonstrate the adjusted square root of OPS divided by WAR+. If you're making the game that complicated, you're missing the point. People go to the park to be entertained and watch their favorite players and teams do well. Sometimes, fans are drawn to certain teams or players for reasons that your spreadsheet can't measure. But you can't say that intangibles simply don't exist or don't matter. The fans dictate what matters- not your calculation.
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
<< <i>This is another example of you attempting to re-purpose the Hall of Fame into the Hall of Excel Spreadsheet Stardom. The Hall of FAME (please go look this up and think about the word for a while) and the game of baseball exist for the fan and only the fan. People don't go to the park to see someone demonstrate the adjusted square root of OPS divided by WAR+. If you're making the game that complicated, you're missing the point. People go to the park to be entertained and watch their favorite players and teams do well. Sometimes, fans are drawn to certain teams or players for reasons that your spreadsheet can't measure. But you can't say that intangibles simply don't exist or don't matter. The fans dictate what matters- not your calculation. >>
So I'm not a fan because of my use of numbers....Don't talk down to me about how I should or shouldn't be a fan it comes across as rude. Also this characterization is drastically overblown - when I'm at a Rangers game (which is waaaayy more than I should since I don't how to be a fan or shouldn't be) I don't have my calculator out. I'm doing the same thing everyone else is - getting hung up on 1 pitch or whether a guy gets it done in the clutch. Those things tend to get washed out over the course of the season and while they're important at that instance in the game, over the course of 162 it probably didn't matter or it evened out. The thing about advance metrics that people often get wrong it's not suppose to say well this batter doesn't hit lefties in the daytime after the 3rd inning with 2 outs, pinch hit for him. You've got to have a large sample size, often more than one year to use the data effectively and correctly. I have never said intangibles don't matter, but at the same time this is baseball, not football, not basketball, not hockey. You can't will your team to win, IMHO. You can't rally behind on guy in the sense you can in a more emotional sport, like football. That's because of the individual nature of baseball within the team game. I do not believe in momentum because how one batter does will not affect how the next batter performs. - I will predict right now you will take issue with this.
I too go to the park to be entertained and watch the Rangers do well. I too like a player that I can't really explain - Colby Lewis. Ozzie Smith is most famous for his defensive skills not his flip. To me fame is the top 1% of the game, the truly great of the great. For guys like Ruth, Gehrig, Seaver, Ryan, Mays there is no debate. Everyone can see it. For guys like Bonds, McGwire, Palmeiro, Clemens the debate kicks in with steroids. For guys like Murphy, Lynn, Dawson, Rice, Whitaker, Trammell - the fringe guys on both sides of the equation that's were an advance metric or two might better help solve the puzzle if player X should be in the Hall of Fame. Again I don't know why you are so angry or at least you are coming across that way? My apologies if you're not. If someone has a different methodology I would think people as baseball fans would be interested in learning about it. I mean even the writers are starting to pay attention from Olney even on up to Gammons. Look at the 2010 AL Cy Young.
We're never going to agree. It would be best to stop trying to change each others minds. And for the record I'm not trying to get you to ignore intangibles, rather just look at and acknowledge there are other ways to measure a player that might help you make a more informed decision. Also OPS really as an advanced stat.... It's the addition of two numbers - on base and slugging. I didn't realize that was that advanced.
What I'm selling
Building Sets, Collecting Texas Rangers, and Texas Tech Red Raiders
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
1. Dale Murphy has a number of zealous fans.
2. Dale Murphy will need to buy a ticket to get into the HOF.
Edit to add: And third, where is Skinpinch???
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Mark Fidrych and Jeremy Lin drove people to games too, lets put them up for enshrinement.
Another reason 'stat guys' get this venom spewed on them, is I just pooped all over Dale Murphy and why there is no way he deserves to be in the HOF. You were obviously a fan and enjoyed watching him play. That doesn't mean Dale Murphy wasn't great. Dale Murphy was one hell of a ballplayer and I hope he got paid with the likes of Schmidt, Morris, Carter, Valenzuela, and all the other studs of the 80s. There is an argument that Dale Murphy was one of the top 5 players for the entire decade. For baseball as a whole Dale Murphy is certainly in the top 5, hell maybe 3 to 1.5% of players to ever play the game. But Dale Murphy is not in that elite, elite, elitist of classes that gets to go to Cooperstown. And I get that you loved watching him play the game, because he did it the right way. I like all of those things too. I really do. I enjoy that.
One of my favorite players to watch is Adrian Beltre. He always does things to make me smile. If the pitch is inside and he takes, he almost dances in place, running his feet up and down. He'll hit a couple HRs a year off one knee, even did it in game 5 of the World Series off Chris Carpenter (last time I enjoyed baseball...). If there are 2 outs runners on 1st and 2nd and the ball gets hit to him, he doesn't throw to first, he will stand in the base line and have the biggest smile on his face. And just thinking about it makes me smile. He has always been one of my all time favorite players for the way he plays - hard, but always has a good time, always enjoying himself. So yes those that like stats can enjoy the nuance of it all. Now in 10-15 years when Beltre who will probably be very close to 3,000 hits, around 400 home runs, and played one hell of third base throughout his career will be up for the hall of fame and probably have a debatable entry. All the things that I just mentioned - while I love shouldn't go into the equation. The Hall of Fame to me is about the production you have on the field.
It's this kind of stuff that gets him in the Hall...
Here's why I don't think there is momentum in baseball, at least from an offensive standpoint, I do believe that pitchers can get on a roll and get in a groove. Lets take the Rangers lineup for example. Ian Kinsler leads off, Elvis Andrus bats second, and Josh Hamilton hits third. How does Kinsler's at bat affect Andrus's? I mean sure the defense is going to play differently, the signs might be different, Andrus might be pitched to differently. But if Kinsler gets a hit how does this change the outcome of Andrus's at bat. I'm not trying to be an ass here either - I legitimately can't think of one way that one outcome causes the next outcome to change. I'm all ears if there is. So if the Rangers are down 3 runs and all of sudden 8 guys in a row get hits I don't think that was momentum swinging; that 8 guys in a row getting hits.
What I'm selling
Building Sets, Collecting Texas Rangers, and Texas Tech Red Raiders
<< <i>After reading this thread, I've come to two conclusions:
1. Dale Murphy has a number of zealous fans.
2. Dale Murphy will need to buy a ticket to get into the HOF.
Edit to add: And third, where is Skinpinch??? >>
After reading this comment, I have 3 observations:
1. Grote's passion for the NY Mets is of HOF quality.
2. This year's Mets team will be very competitive. By competitive, I mean that they will fight like hell to avoid being the worst team in the history of baseball.
3. Even after plastic surgery, Jon Neise is still the ugliest pitcher in the NL East.
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
Well, I guess it could be worse--he could be the ugliest pitcher in the NL or in MLB..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
1) Frank Baker 1911-14, led the AL in HRs. His best year being 1913 when he tallied 12 round trippers
2) Babe Ruth 1918-1921, led the AL in HRs
3) Babe Ruth 1926-1931, led the Al in HRs
4) Ralph Kiner 1946-1952, led the NL in HRs
5) Mickey Mantle 1955-1958, led the AL in HRs in 55, 56,& 58; won the AL MVP in 56, 57
6) Dale Murphy 1982-1985, won the NL in 82, 83; led the NL in HRs in 84, 85
7) Barry Bonds 2001-2004, Won NL MVP; led NL in HRs in 01
<< <i>...2. This year's Mets team will be very competitive. By competitive, I mean that they will fight like hell to avoid being the worst team in the history of baseball......... >>
Good call Kreskin.
TheClockworkAngelCollection
To be honest, no direction, but...
1966-69 Topps EX+
1975 minis NrMt Kelloggs PSA 9
All Topps Heritage-Master Sets
Murphy will make it into the Hall, it will be by the veteran's committee.
1) Dale Murphy collector, lost it when I switched Internet providers and lost my email address
2) CrimsonTider, lost it when I had a flame out with GumbyFan
3) LodiBrewFan, a straight up alt to attempt to mess with GumbyFan, but then decided that messing with someone who I really didn't know was really stupid, so now I am stuck with this silly username.
4) Due to the utter awesomeness of Nick Saban, the CU powers-that-be should give me back CrimsonTider
5) I would ask Carol but I think she now works some where else.
6) Dale Murphy and Nick Saban both have statues outside of their respective stadiums, just saying.
7) I miss having Bill here, some thought he was a jackwad, but I liked tormenting any LSU fan. 2011 third in the SEC, but NATIONAL CHAMPS!!! Suck it Bill!
CDsNuts, 1/9/15
<< <i>If Jim Rice and Tony Perez are in the Hall of Fame then Dale Murphy should be . >>
I don't necessarily disagree with that analogy, but if your argument for induction for the guy you're advocating for is that he may be better than two of the lowest level HOFers, I'm not sure that is a very compelling or persuasive argument..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>I'm not sure that Jim Rice is as close to the bottom as you believe. Rice just wasn't as good as he was made out to be during his playing years, but he was a strong hitter. That being said, Murphy's numbers don't dwarf Rice's numbers in any way. Offensively, I think I would take Rice's career. >>
All you gotta do is look at Rice's road numbers to see he's a low, low-level hall of famer.
Honestly I would rather have them over Biggio but voting doesn't work that way.
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
I know he had the cocaine issue and atypical power for a first baseman, but Keith Hernandez was also an MVP, maybe the best fielder ever at the position, and an incredibly clutch hitter and player and has also never had much support.
ebay id Duffs_Dugout
My Ebay Auctions
<< <i>It always surprised me how little support Murphy got. He was the best player in the NL for much of the 80s with multiple MVPs and a good guy image that has sustained. I've always felt that players from his period, just before the steroid era, have been unfairly looked down on due to comparisons to the era that followed. If you remember, 87 was also considered a juiced ball year, though you don't see that mentioned much today. >>
The problem for Murphy is that he really wasn't much outside of his 82-87 run. Good in 80, terrible after 87.
<< <i> I know he had the cocaine issue and atypical power for a first baseman, but Keith Hernandez was also an MVP, maybe the best fielder ever at the position, and an incredibly clutch hitter and player and has also never had much support. >>
He had the same career as John Olerud and nobody is asking Olerud to get in the HOF.
One of the top players in the 1980s, but voters look at numbers, and his come up just short.
That being said, he's better than a number of players already in the HOF, so that argument can be made.
Maybe a veterans committee will vote him in in the future.