<< <i>No it is not insane to exclude him. He is not even close to being the best player not in the HOF.
He did not retire as the career leaders in HRs among right handed hitters. He had a little less than 70% of the all time leader-Foxx. >>
I didn't say he was the best player not in. Judging him against all of the non-inductees that have come along since his retiement is what keeps him out. If compared to his contemporaries, he's quite worthy.
Speaking of which, this isn't some kind of zero sum contest between him and Foxx. I should have remembered Double X's total was higher, but (now that I look it up) Hodges' total was the NL record for right handers at his retirement. Not to mention the fact that most of his numbers were accrued while he was the anchor of a legendary multiple pennant winning team.
Lastly, there is really no need for you to be so dismissive and snotty. I'm reminded now why I usually avoid these debates.
Hodges had a lifetime OPS+ of 120, and he had a lifetime total of 8,104 lifetime plate appearances.
Jim Rice 128 OPS+, but he did it over 9,054 lifetime plate appearances.
Even if you used only Hodges years up to age 35, and made a similar career length to RIce, his OPS+ was 123 over that span(and with FAR fewer plate apperances).
Hodges top finishes in the league in OPS+ was 5th, 6th, 8th, 8th.
The other metrics are going to say the same thing. Hodges is below the level of a guy like Rice, and Rice was is a very iffy induction.
<< <i>This isn't strictly about cheating at all, no matter what you-- or anyone else-- says on the subject. It's about cheating with drugs, which for some reason is regarded as being ten times more vile than cheating with emery files. Once someone can explain the logic behind this glaring inconsistency I'll start taking some of this tripe seriously. >>
Philosophy students should ask if it would still be cheating if the league had no punishment at all for spitball pitchers
<< <i>It's kind of ancillary but one of the things I hate most about these yo yos is that they've skewed the record book and the standards for making the Hall. When all of these numbers were thought to be aboveboard, guys like Murphy, Parker and Dawson all got left in the mirror >>
Parker was a drug user; Muprhy and Dawson probably had a similar drug history as Reggie Smith and Dwight Evans. It is the sports writers interpretation (or lack thereof) of standards that screw the Hall-of-Fame, not drugs. Even if we apply the standards correctly and Murphy, Parker and Dawson are all borderline and most of us who prefer higher standards disagree with the Dawson selection
Problem with McGriff is there were too many firstbaseman from his generation better than him. Even if you think drugs hurt the community and we should fight a war against them, putting votes that would have gone to McGwire and Palmerio to someone who otherwise would not have received them simply continues to lower the standards
Managing one of the most improbable champions in sports history is enough to push Hodges past Rice, which is much more of a knock on Rice than a credit to Hodges. . .
<< <i>Perhaps you're not in the know but this has been an ongoing debate with TomG and I. He claims that the front offices knew (or must have know), same difference, that there was widespread use of steroids going on as early as the early 90s. He believes it strongly and I respect his right to believe that but don't except his view, or anyone who would make such a claim, as being factual in anyway (at least for now). I'm assuming that is what you're chiming in on. But as I think about it, I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say by making such a general comment as they "knew". So for clarification purposes, what are you suggesting they "knew"? >>
It isn't factual that baseball had no drug testing? If there is a likelihood that McGwire, Sosa and Bonds were having their pee tested for drugs during their homerun chases I will agree completely that they were cheaters
I guess it is possibly that the majority of the league, the fans, the media and the players didn't know steroids helped sports performance. I guess it is possible that even if they knew there were drugs that improved sports performance, perhaps they thought professional athletes were unique humans and responded to incentives in far different ways than everyone else. On those issues I am only speculating and should perhaps reconsider
If the league took exception with steroids, they would have tested for it and suspended players (likewise, if the media or customers had an issue, they would have demanded it). Because they chose not to do that, when it was going on, they readily agreed drug use acceptable
Going forward, because they now test for it, it is cheating
<< <i>I apologize. I did not mean to sound dismissive. >>
Fair enough. Looking back, I probably overreacted and I really should have looked the RH homer thing up before posting instead of leaving it as an open ended question.
And it was pretty stupid of me to forget Foxx like that.
Dawson are all borderline and most of us who prefer higher standards disagree with the Dawson selection
>>
So you think a 8-time gold glover and 1 of 3 players in history to hit 400 homers and 300 stolen bases is borderline?
Dawson is definitely one of the weaker members of the HOF...his OBP%, if I'm not mistaken, is the lowest of any outfielder in the HOF..
And playing in the friendly confines of Wrigley Field def helped those power numbers quite a bit..
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.
During Dawson's last five years in Montreal, he averaged 23 home runs per season. In his last five years in Chicago he averaged 25 home runs per season. He had one really big year for the Cubs, but otherwise, the numbers kinda blend in with the rest of his career. Now, is he the worst outfielder in the HOF? Who knows? He certainly isn't as close to the top as he is to the bottom, but is he not worthy of at least being in? I mean, SOMEBODY has to be the worst guy. What is that standard? Do we set the bar so high that only the very, very best make it? If so, then only 40-50 guys would be in. Do we lower it a little so that guys like Al Kaline and Brooks Robinson are in? Then we let in a lot more guys. Well, it has been lowered so that guys like Ray Schalk, Rick Ferrell, Bill Mazeroski, Joe Tinker, and Johnny Evers are HOFers. This is where the problem is. You cannot convince me that Andre Dawson isn't the equal or better than those guys. Heck, there are probably a couple dozen guys that are better than that group. There is no way that anyone can convince me that Phil Rizzuto was a better player than Ron Santo. So, if we induct every guy better than that group, then there will be a lot of inductees in the near future. Or do we retroactively raise the standards and make it tougher and just live with the screwups of the past? Considering that the HOF opened in the 1930's, why do we need a Veteran's Committee anyway? It was originally meant for players that were forgotten and unseen by the current writers. But everybody that is worth anything since then has gone through the voting process and there is tons of film on them. Why do we need it? Let's just do what we did with the Negro League players a few years ago. Let's have one big Veteran's Committee meeting that will decide once and for all on all of the guys of the past, and then we put it to bed and get rid of it forever, thereby keeping at least some level of quality in the Hall (assuming you believe that the writers will do the right thing).
Bottom line is that if you are the OF with the lowest OBP% of any member in the HOF, it's safe to say you should consider yourself fairly fortunate to have been voted in. And while he may have hit a number of his home runs in Montreal, too, there's no question that Wrigley field was a great place for power hitters during this era. For example, Dawson exceeded 25 homers once while with Montreal, but exceeded 25 homers three times while with Chicago, including a career high of 49 homers in 1987.
Edit: The HOF has its share of borderline candidates as it is, while guys like Santo and Blyleven who are even more deserving are shut out. Personally, I'd have no problem if the standards were a little tougher, and I'd certainly have no problem excluding guys like Andre Dawson and Jim Rice, for that matter.
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.
This is exactly what I was talking about above. Andre Dawson wasn't expected to walk then and penalizing him because people have a different mindset now is about like penalizing guys from the '50's because they didn't steal a lot of bases.
The guy we all saw in Chicago, while still extremely dangerous, was working on pounded knees from playing on that crap in Montreal. In his prime, Dawson was a power hitter who also had speed and defensive prowess to spare. He was one of the elite players in the majors.
<< <i>This is exactly what I was talking about above. Andre Dawson wasn't expected to walk then and penalizing him because people have a different mindset now is about like penalizing guys from the '50's because they didn't steal a lot of bases.
The guy we all saw in Chicago, while still extremely dangerous, was working on pounded knees from playing on that crap in Montreal. In his prime, Dawson was a power hitter who also had speed and defensive prowess to spare. He was one of the elite players in the majors. >>
Indeed. Jon Kruk said Dawson shouldve gone in long before his 9th try. He also said the voting process is a joke. Dawson did everything you could ask a player to do. He could beat you with his arm, bat, and legs. I dont care what his obp was. How many outfielders had 8 gold gloves and 300 stolen bases? Willie mays and Barry Bonds are the only 2 other players to have 400 homers and 300 stolen bases. I would say thats pretty elite company.
When Sosa won his mvp in 98 over mcgwire , the voters didnt penalize Sosa for playing at wrigley lol.
<< <i>This is exactly what I was talking about above. Andre Dawson wasn't expected to walk then and penalizing him because people have a different mindset now is about like penalizing guys from the '50's because they didn't steal a lot of bases.
The guy we all saw in Chicago, while still extremely dangerous, was working on pounded knees from playing on that crap in Montreal. In his prime, Dawson was a power hitter who also had speed and defensive prowess to spare. He was one of the elite players in the majors. >>
You act is if anybody could just decide that they will be an elite hitter. HOF hitters from Dawson's era DID get on base a lot, AND did it while maintaining an elite slugging percentage as well, therefore, they were superior hitters than him.
You say that MLB management expected guys to not walk?? Did they expect their hitters to make outs?
1983 is a prime example. This is one of Dawson's finest years for guys like you. He hit .299, had 32HR, and 113 RBI. He also stole 25 bases.
Yeah, those are very good, but when you look that he made the SECOND MOST OUTS in the league, and he got caught stealing 11 times, it pushes those totals from HOF, to just excellent.
IN 1983 Dawson had a .539 SLG%, and a .338 OB% Murray had a .538 SLG%, and a .393 OB%.
How come Murray was able to do both?
Some HOF hitters of that era did maintain a high OB% to go with the same slugging percentage. A good evaluator gives the walks the proper weight, which is approximately 2/3 the value of a single.
It amazes me how baseball stupid people are when it comes to walks. The funny thing about it is that these same people will get all over their pitcher when THEY walk a batter. Get it?
Oh, I know what is next..."his job is to drive in runs, blah, blah, blah, and shouldn't walk when there are men on base, blah, blah, blah."
Riddle me this, how come Andre Dawson's career On Base percentage is .312 when he batted with nobody on base???? Do you realize that a base on balls has the same value as a single when a batter has nobody on base??
Oh, here is what is next, "You have to be aggresive, you can't hit a HR if you walk, and it is their job to hit HR's, blah, blah, blah." Then how do other sluggers manage to hit HR's at the same rate and still help their team by walking and getting on base??
Also, some of the BETTER hitters from his era may not chase the pitcher's pitches that do lead to those enormous amount of outs made. They lay off of them, and swing at the pitches that DO lead to the Home RUn type hits. The resulting effect is a lot of HR, a lot of times on base, and a normal amount of outs made.
Injuries, etc... are a different subject, but you are crazy with your sentiments above.
FINALLY, there is no need to guess or argue about the value of players from Dawson's era, because the play by play data is so good, and so precise, that we already know what they did in each situation, and how each hitting event in each situation impacted runs. The valued added batter runs done by retrosheet has all that. Instead of guessing, or making assumptions about walks, just look at the value added batter runs, because it includes ALL of that stuff, including how well they hit with runners on base.
In 1983, Murray had 54.7 adjusted batter runs In 1983, Dawson had 25.7 adjusted batter runs
That my friend is the difference between a HOF hitter from that era, and just an excellent hitter(defense aside, injury factor aside, career length aside, etc...).
A shortcut to get that info is to look at the OB% and SLG% of the players, and it will lead to a similar conclusion...though that won't include the men on base performances.
My post has nothing to do with Dawson's qualifications as a HOF player, there are other considerations...but when I see first grade analysis on hitting, I have to say something.
Saberman-I for one appreciate your ananlysis. Of course some people refuse to let the facts get in the way of what they already know through intuition and witchcraft.
I love stats but I tend to use them to help me determine differences in bacterial diseases and which organisms can be causing them.
I hope that the stat guys are using their "offline" time to actually do something usefull with all of their statistical knowledge.
Using stats alone to me does not solve any arguments about who was better. There are alot of other things at play. Stats also do not do a good job of predicting the future in sports but do a good job of analyzing the past. Human beings are poor subjects to try and predict future behavor using statistical modeling.
Currently completing the following registry sets: Cardinal HOF's, 1961 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1972 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1980 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, Bill Mazeroski Master & Basic Sets, Roberto Clemente Master & Basic Sets, Willie Stargell Master & Basic Sets and Terry Bradshaw Basic Set
<< <i>This is exactly what I was talking about above. Andre Dawson wasn't expected to walk then and penalizing him because people have a different mindset now is about like penalizing guys from the '50's because they didn't steal a lot of bases >>
He was expected to do what would best help the Cubs and Expos win games
Stats also do not do a good job of predicting the future in sports but do a good job of analyzing the past. Human beings are poor subjects to try and predict future behavor using statistical modeling. >>
I disagree. Stats do help predict the future. I expect Pujols to be good this year, because he has been good in the past and has not been unusually lucky. Past performace is an extremely strong indicator of future performance, if you know what to look at and what to ignore.
The argument that Eddie Murray was a better player than Andre Dawson in 1983 is a really good one. Except that Eddie Murray was better than almost everyone in 1983. Eddie Murray is a first ballot Hall of Famer. Dawson was not. Nobody in their right mind would argue that Andre Dawson was a better player than Eddie Murray. If I take Brooks Robinson and I put his hitting numbers up against Hank Aaron, guess what? Brooks looks weak. But does that mean that Brooks isn't a HOFer just because he pales in comparison to one of the greats of the game? There are no rankings inside the Hall of Fame. It is a simple "in" or "out". What standard do you hold Andre Dawson to? Saberman, you obviously hold Dawson to the Eddie Murray standard. And that's ok. I'd be ok with that if the Hall of Fame made the cutoff at Eddie Murray. It would be very exclusive and it would be only for the elite. But the Hall has not made Eddie Murray the standard. The standard is much lower. There are a number of position players with plaques in Cooperstown that are nowhere near as good as Andre Dawson. Or Tim Raines. Or Dwight Evans. Or Dick Allen, Dale Murphy, Steve Garvey, etc.... Does Andre Dawson match up with the BEST of the Hall of Fame? No, clearly. But does he match up with the WORST of the Hall of Fame. Yes, he does. So, he is in. Not by much. But he's in.
" Eddie Murray was better than almost everyone in 1983 "
He might not have been even the best player on his own team in 1983, as Cal Ripken won the official AL award for MVP !
Dawson, who was likely below Mike Schmidt in the NL 1983, did lead the league in hits, total bases, and extra base hits.
1987 was Dawson's MVP year and his second one leading in total bases, Eddie Murray won the MVP or was the leader in total bases in , well,... never. Murray did compile 500 HR and 3000 hits, which unquestionably makes him a HOFer.
Andre Dawson, after the votes were counted, is now also unquestionably, an official HOFer, forever. Is the HOF further diluted ?, it's not an absolute, but, yes probably,.... but soooooo what ! Is any group of all stars all equal, is every member of a graduating class exactly just as smart, does every Art Museum have only true "masterpieces ", are all one's children identical in skill levels, do most collector save only PSA 10 cards ???
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Eddie Murray when it's said and done is in the HOF. If I went year by year, he would never be the best first baseman in the league. Compiled alot of stats.
[Eddie Murray when it's said and done is in the HOF. If I went year by year, he would never be the best first baseman in the league. Compiled alot of stats.
Are you joking? A lifetime OPS of .836, OPS+ of 129, OBP% of .359, SLG% .476, over 3,000 hits, 500 HRs, and almost 2K RBIs, and you say he was a compiler of stats? Sure, he compiled awesome stats, if that's what you mean, LOL..
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.
Morgoth, nobody is trying to predict what Andre Dawson is going to do in the future, we are examining what he did in the past. And the best way to examine it is to use the best available evidence. The clowns above simply are not, just as you don't. The funny thing is that the best available evidence is there and is quite accurate.
Hitting in baseball is very accurate to determine worth....with the use of stats. In fact, there is no other thing in team sports that can be evaluated to such a high degree with a statistical analysis, as hitting is. Somebody's opinion on how a guy did is WORTHLESS, just as his opinion is on what he THINKS how much a walk or double, or HR, helps, doesn't help a team.
The real problems rest in the fact that ever since I put your hero Bill Mazeroski's fielding in a different light, you have been like a cry baby and on a crusade against the use of statistical evaluation in baseball.
You, like most, have an agenda to all of your arguments, and it clouds your judgement. Guys who are against the use of OB% or something like that, are on that crusade because it is putting one of their heroes in a different light than what their emotions want them to be. They are not objective...and 99% of sports fans are NOT objective at all.
Much like using Mazeroski's replacements as evidence that he may not have been as good in the field as you believe...
P.S. Morgoth, get off your high horse with your job of fighting diseases. If you were so good, then why were you out of work? I use almost all my time helping children. It is tiring and emotionally draining, so sometimes I take a break and get a laugh by lambasting the clowns on this board about sports.
Also, the HOF is a different debate, as that can have a lot of meanings.
But when people make statements that a low OB% is something that can just be ignored because they think we are retroactively making a base on balls important in Dawson's era, is stupid. If this clown thinks a base on balls was not important back then, then I am sure he was always pleased when the pitcher on his favorite team would walk three guys in the first inning. Morons.
Mickey, are you on dope? Eddie Murray was the best hitter in baseball from 1982-1985, and also happened to be one of the best fielding first basemen those years. He was the best hitter in MLB two of those years individually. Yeah, if you look at faulty stats or something, you may find a case for yours...
Of course stats are important and interesting but one shouldn't need stats to KNOW whether a player deserves to be in the Hall of Fame or not. When voting for Mickey Mantle to be in the Hall, did anyone need to go back and check his stats to make sure? Of course not. Did anyone have to go back and check stats to see if Sandy Koufax belongs in the Hall, despite already knowing he had a relatively low number of wins versus other Hall of Fame pitchers? Of course not.
Perhaps if anyone needs to go back and check stats to determine whether or not a player deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, in my viewpoint that player probably shouldn't get in the Hall of Fame.
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 MVP 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
Yes to Ron Santo- I think he was a great third baseman, good hitter and the only thing missing is a Worled Series appearance
I will add Gil Hodges and Frank Howard- Why?
Hodges was a great clutcher player - long time leader of the NL for Career Grand Slams- Hodges understood the game better than anyone- as a player and a manager
Frank Howard- the man has hit the longest home runs in MLB history- and there are those that will doubt the claim- but for those of us whoever saw him swing a bat understand-
Howard gets in based on strength and what he was able to do well before what the game has become- An honest guy needs to be recognized for what the was in the 1960s and what it is today=
I will turn the clock back if I had the choice
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Here are Murphy's and Murray's year by year situational batter runs from 1982-1985. These the the results from the play by play data, where every at bat in every base/out situation is accounted for already. Each event has the proper weight assigned to it(derived from the play by play data, not the guess work fans usually do). Home ball park is also accounted for.
The correct answer is the one I presented already, Murray was the man. Murphy was excellent those years though. Their place in the alphabet was much closer than their place as hitters in those years.
Here is what hurts Murphy. Here are his next five best years....40,39,25,10, 10, and 10. Murphy had his prime four years as posted above, then had three more good to very good years, then was merely average or below for the rest of it.
Murphy's career total was 258 Murray's career total was 510
Keep in mind that Murphy did not play through his old man years with very many at bats, which would actually bring his total down a bit, wheras guys like Murray, or Brett did play until their early 40's where they were still contributing, but not at the same prime level.
Murphy's last full season was through age 35, where had had 8,923 lifetime plate apperances. His OPS+ was 123 at that point. Which is also his career total because he only managed 100 more at bats after age 35.
Murphy's OPS+ sat at 123 through 8,923 lifetime plate appearances
Murray's OPS+ sat at 140 through 9,100 lifetime plate appearances. Brett's OPS+ sat at 141 through 9,100 lifetime plate appearances Schmidt's OPS+ sat at 151 as of 9,400 lifetime plate appearances. Winfield OPS+ was at 135 as of 9,400 lifetime plate appearances Reggie OPS+ was at 140 as of 9,400 lifetime plate appearances.
OPS+ is not as accurate as the situational batter runs, as Murray and Brett get a boost, and Schmidt and Reggie get a downgrade....but it doesn't help Murphy's cause. As you can see, he was NOT as good as the other HOFers in their prime, and not as good as them in their longevity either. The notion of those other guys as compilers is false. Guys like Murphy, Rice, or Dawson were not as good as them in their primes.
That doesn't mean they can''t be HOFers, but understand their primes' weren't as good as the kings of the era.
HOWEVER>>>>>
Here are the lifetime situational batter runs for....
Like I said in the Rice debates, it is about fairness, not witch hunts. I was sticking up for the guys like Murphy, Dewey, and Lynn. They, and their families and fans should be up in arms that similar and lesser players are being put into the HOF before them! THe fact that Murphy was actually better than RIce offensively AND defensively, is a travesty that RIce is in, and Murphy not. Plus Murphy has just as much 'fame' as Rice with the two MVP's and clean cut image thing going on. Neither won a WS.
People get angry with me, but it is about being object and fair. Somebody has to fight for the Fred Lynn's, Murphy's, and Dewey's of the world while other lesser players for some reason get all this credit that should not be going their way!
Hodges was a great clutcher player - long time leader of the NL for Career Grand Slams- Hodges understood the game better than anyone- as a player and a manager.
What is the evidence that Hodges was a great clutch player?
Eddie Murray was the best hitter in baseball from 1982-1985,)
Not even close, Dale Murphy is the correct answer.
Crimson is actually a good illustration of the disconnect between the perception of a player's ability and the reality of that player's abilities. One needs only to read Crimson's sig line to illustrate that point.
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>What is the evidence that Hodges was a great clutch player?
He died before I had the opportunity to depose him.
Ask around... you might be surprised
For starters- 14 career grand slams - long time NL leader in that catagory does not hurt the argument.
Look at his world series stats - look the decade of the 1950s and tell me who was a better first baseman?
Look for the evidence and you will find it >>
q]What is the evidence that Hodges was a great clutch player? He died before I had the opportunity to depose him. Ask around... you might be surprised For starters- 14 career grand slams - long time NL leader in that catagory does not hurt the argument. Look at his world series stats - look the decade of the 1950s and tell me who was a better first baseman? Look for the evidence and you will find it >>
A grand slam in a 10-0 blowout means nothing. As for the world series, are you referring to the one in which he went 0 for 21? Perhaps you should have checked his WS stats. You made a claim, but have not backed it up.
Are you saying that he was a clutch player because you said so? That dog won't hunt. Give me evidence.
Situation batter runs is another good stat, but far from perfect or all inclusive, somewhat short-sighted to feel it is easily the best one to evaluate a player. No stats take into account all possible variations, the opposing pitcher quality, the team position in the pennant race, the weather, the defense and its shifts, and many other possible alterations. RC or runs created was once thought to be the new end-all stat to evaluate a hitter.
A very good stat is Wins above replacement, or WAR as it is often called, it also tries to measure defense, baserunning contributions, and the position played, in addition to hitting.
1982 through 1985, Dale Murphy, averaged being the 6.75 th best player in his league. Eddie Murray, averaged being the 6.25 th best player in his league
1982 through 1985, using the Adjusted Batting Wins stat, and also the Offensive Win % stat, Murphy and Murray led or were runner-up , 4 and 3 times respectively.
1982 through 1985. using traditional triple crown hitting titles and MVP awards, Dale 6, Eddie 0.
Always debatable and somewhat subjective, it seems the two were very similar for that time span.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Hodges ended the 1953 season with a .302 batting average, 122 RBI's and 31 home runs.
In the 1953 World Series, Hodges hit .364; he had three hits including a homer in the 9-5 Game 1 loss. The Dodgers lost in six games to the Yankees.
In 1954, Hodgeshad a great season- setting the team home run record for the Dodgers, a .304 batting average, lead the NL in putouts (1381) and assists (132). He was second in the league to Ted Kluszewski in home runs and had 130 RBI's. Total bases 335, slugging % at .579 and and runs 106.
The 1955 season .289 average, 27 HRs and 102 RBI, but the year ended with a most satisfying conclusion. While you may be right that Hodges struggled in the first few games of the 1955 series going 1-for-12 in the first three games. In Game 4, things dramatically turned- he hit a 2-run homer in the fourth inning to put Brooklyn ahead 4-3, and later had an RBI single as they held off the Yankees 8-5. Hodges scored the first run in the 5-3 win in Game 5. In Game 7 he drove in Campanella with two out in the fourth for a 1-0 lead, and added a sacrifice fly to score Reese with one out in the sixth. Johnny Podres scattered eight New York hits, and when Reese threw Elston Howard's grounder to Hodges for the final out, Brooklyn had a 2-0 win and the first World Series title in franchise history. Hodges had both RBI's in the World Series game that mattered to Brooklyn fans- 1955 was the year they beat the Yankees and it would not have happened without Hodges.
In 1956, Hodges had 32 home runs and 87 RBI as Brooklyn and met the Yankees in the World Series again. In the third inning of Game 1 he hit a 3-run homer to put Brooklyn ahead 5-2, and they went on to a 6-3 win; he had three hits and four RBI in Game 2's 13-8 slugfest, scoring to give the Dodgers a 7-6 lead in the third and doubling in two runs each in the fourth and fifth innings for an 11-7 lead. In Game 5 he struck out, flied to center and lined to third base in Don Larsen's perfect game. Brooklyn lost in seven games.
In 1957, Hodges had another great season-set the NL career grand slams and finished seventh in the NL with a .299 batting average and fifth with 98 RBI, 27 HRs 7 triples and slugging %at .511 and lead the NL with 1317 putouts.
In late September he drove in the last Dodger run ever at Ebbets Field, and also the last run in Brooklyn history.
Hodges became the seventh player to hit 300 home runs in the NL, in 1958. He finished with 22 HRs and 64 RBI, however things changed in 1959. The Dodgers captured the pennant, with Hodges contributing 25 HRs and 80 RBI and hitting .276, with a .513 slugging mark and led the NL with a .992 fielding average.
Hodges batted .391 in the 1959 World Series against the Chicago White Sox (his first against a non-Yankee team), with his solo home run in the eighth inning of Game 4 giving the Dodgers a 5-4 win, as they triumphed in six games for another Series championship. In 1960 he broke Kiner's NL record for right-handed hitters of 351 career home runs.
Manager of the NY Mets- priceless- and that is coming from a die hard Cubs fan
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>But when people make statements that a low OB% is something that can just be ignored because they think we are retroactively making a base on balls important in Dawson's era, is stupid. If this clown thinks a base on balls was not important back then, then I am sure he was always pleased when the pitcher on his favorite team would walk three guys in the first inning. Morons. >>
Even if I had actually maintained any of that in the stereotypical fashion that you claim I did, is any of this really worth tossing around these kinds of insults over? Really?
This is what I wrote:
<< <i>This is exactly what I was talking about above. Andre Dawson wasn't expected to walk then and penalizing him because people have a different mindset now is about like penalizing guys from the '50's because they didn't steal a lot of bases. >>
I didn't endorse the mindset of disdaining walks and being aggressive. I merely noted it's existence. There is a signifigant difference in the two things.
You went on to build a signifigant case revolving around the comparision between Dawson and Eddie Murray. Highlights of this include:
<< <i>1983 is a prime example. This is one of Dawson's finest years for guys like you. He hit .299, had 32HR, and 113 RBI. He also stole 25 bases.
IN 1983 Dawson had a .539 SLG%, and a .338 OB% Murray had a .538 SLG%, and a .393 OB%.
How come Murray was able to do both?
Some HOF hitters of that era did maintain a high OB% to go with the same slugging percentage. A good evaluator gives the walks the proper weight, which is approximately 2/3 the value of a single. >>
and
<< <i>FINALLY, there is no need to guess or argue about the value of players from Dawson's era, because the play by play data is so good, and so precise, that we already know what they did in each situation, and how each hitting event in each situation impacted runs. The valued added batter runs done by retrosheet has all that. Instead of guessing, or making assumptions about walks, just look at the value added batter runs, because it includes ALL of that stuff, including how well they hit with runners on base.
In 1983, Murray had 54.7 adjusted batter runs In 1983, Dawson had 25.7 adjusted batter runs
That my friend is the difference between a HOF hitter from that era, and just an excellent hitter(defense aside, injury factor aside, career length aside, etc...). >>
All of which is really nice, except for the fact that I agree with the assertion that Eddie was the superior hitter. I won't go deeply into it but I argue for Murray's transcendent greatness all the time and the one argument I always encounter most is Mickey's "compiler" one, which isn't one that holds much water with me. For whatever good my opinion as a "moron" may be worth.
My sole important assertion in this post is that Dawson qualifies as a Hall of Famer. Powederd H2O's post covers it well:
<< <i>The argument that Eddie Murray was a better player than Andre Dawson in 1983 is a really good one. Except that Eddie Murray was better than almost everyone in 1983. Eddie Murray is a first ballot Hall of Famer. Dawson was not. Nobody in their right mind would argue that Andre Dawson was a better player than Eddie Murray. If I take Brooks Robinson and I put his hitting numbers up against Hank Aaron, guess what? Brooks looks weak. But does that mean that Brooks isn't a HOFer just because he pales in comparison to one of the greats of the game? There are no rankings inside the Hall of Fame. It is a simple "in" or "out". What standard do you hold Andre Dawson to? Saberman, you obviously hold Dawson to the Eddie Murray standard. And that's ok. I'd be ok with that if the Hall of Fame made the cutoff at Eddie Murray. It would be very exclusive and it would be only for the elite. But the Hall has not made Eddie Murray the standard. The standard is much lower. There are a number of position players with plaques in Cooperstown that are nowhere near as good as Andre Dawson. Or Tim Raines. Or Dwight Evans. Or Dick Allen, Dale Murphy, Steve Garvey, etc.... Does Andre Dawson match up with the BEST of the Hall of Fame? No, clearly. But does he match up with the WORST of the Hall of Fame. Yes, he does. So, he is in. Not by much. But he's in. >>
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to put on my big red shoes and go climb back into the little car with all of the fellas.
I guess you can call Dale Murphy a better player than Eddie Murray from 1982-1985 if you pick the stats you want. I will pick the ones I want and go the other way.
On Base Percentage Murray vs Murphy .391 .378 1982 .393 .393 1983 .410 .372 1984 .383 .388 1985
Awards mean nothing when comparing players from different leagues. Yes, Murphy won two MVP's. Good for him. In 1982 he beat out the legendary Lonnie Smith for the MVP. Murray finished second in the AL to HOFer Robin Yount who was having arguably his best season. Murphy won the 1983 MVP against a fine class. But Murray finished second in the AL again to another HOFer, Cal Ripken Jr. Murphy finished ninth in 1984, while Murray finished 4th in the AL. In 1985, Murphy finished 7th. Murray finished 5th. So, the average of the two is Murphy finished at an average of 4.5, while Murray finished at an average of 3.3. But again, they played in different leagues, so comparing them is moot. But if you DID compare them, Murphy loses.
As far as Murray being a stat compiler, well, yeah... He compiled them while winning a World Series and a lot of division titles and some gold gloves. He finished in the Top Six in the AL MVP voting for six straight years. Not only is Eddie Murray a HOFer, he is one of the better HOFers!!!
When comparing players, I assume that we should include Gold Glove Awards too.
From 1982 to 1984 Eddie Murray was awarded the Gold Glove, giving him a total of 3 for this time span.
From 1982 to 1985 Dale Murphy was awarded the Gold Glove, giving him a total of four.
Both were great, but I would still take Murphy.
Murphy did have a lower on base% for the entire four years and still was able to score more runs. Murphy's speed is often over looked. He was one of the first to enter the 30/30 club. His speed lead to more runs produced.
You have to be pretty fast to win five straight golden glove awards in centerfield.
<< <i>I choose the first seven applicable stats on a 1986 Fleer Star sticker. >>
That pretty much says it all. With that, you overlook very important aspects, and give incorrect weight to very important factors. Thus come up with very important errors.
The situational batter runs includes all the stuff you have listed, and also all the stuff you did NOT list.
Plus it also includes each event in each base/out situation, i.e a home run with the bases loaded, as compared to nobody on.
The 1984 number you see does not mean Murray was twice as better as Murphy. Zero means league average. Murray was 59.9 runs above a league average performer...Murphy 29.
If you are interested in looking for truth and accuracy, then retrosheet.org is a good place to start. If you are looking for a place to justify your feelings when objective accurate analysis says different, then this board is probably a good place to be.
If you want the MOST accurate analysis for players from that era, then situational batter runs is THE thing to use.
Jaxxr, the situational batter runs can't be perfect...and according to Stephen Hawking, nothing is perfect in the universe.
However, some things are superior than others...and the situational batter runs is so far superior to the other things being used, that it is like comparing the body shape of Bo Derek to that of Anne Ramsey . I am sure some would prefer to see Anne Ramsey nude too...
Comments
<< <i>No it is not insane to exclude him. He is not even close to being the best player not in the HOF.
He did not retire as the career leaders in HRs among right handed hitters. He had a little less than 70% of the all time leader-Foxx. >>
I didn't say he was the best player not in. Judging him against all of the non-inductees that have come along since his retiement is what keeps him out. If compared to his contemporaries, he's quite worthy.
Speaking of which, this isn't some kind of zero sum contest between him and Foxx. I should have remembered Double X's total was higher, but (now that I look it up) Hodges' total was the NL record for right handers at his retirement. Not to mention the fact that most of his numbers were accrued while he was the anchor of a legendary multiple pennant winning team.
Lastly, there is really no need for you to be so dismissive and snotty. I'm reminded now why I usually avoid these debates.
But it's clear to me that he should be in.
<< <i>
But it's clear to me that he should be in. >>
AGREED!
Jim Rice 128 OPS+, but he did it over 9,054 lifetime plate appearances.
Even if you used only Hodges years up to age 35, and made a similar career length to RIce, his OPS+ was 123 over that span(and with FAR fewer plate apperances).
Hodges top finishes in the league in OPS+ was 5th, 6th, 8th, 8th.
The other metrics are going to say the same thing. Hodges is below the level of a guy like Rice, and Rice was is a very iffy induction.
He is also below a guy like George Foster.
I apologize. I did not mean to sound dismissive. It's my opinion v yours. A lot of people agree with you.
<< <i>This isn't strictly about cheating at all, no matter what you-- or anyone else-- says on the subject. It's about cheating with drugs, which for some reason is regarded as being ten times more vile than cheating with emery files. Once someone can explain the logic behind this glaring inconsistency I'll start taking some of this tripe seriously. >>
Philosophy students should ask if it would still be cheating if the league had no punishment at all for spitball pitchers
<< <i>It's kind of ancillary but one of the things I hate most about these yo yos is that they've skewed the record book and the standards for making the Hall. When all of these numbers were thought to be aboveboard, guys like Murphy, Parker and Dawson all got left in the mirror >>
Parker was a drug user; Muprhy and Dawson probably had a similar drug history as Reggie Smith and Dwight Evans. It is the sports writers interpretation (or lack thereof) of standards that screw the Hall-of-Fame, not drugs. Even if we apply the standards correctly and Murphy, Parker and Dawson are all borderline and most of us who prefer higher standards disagree with the Dawson selection
Problem with McGriff is there were too many firstbaseman from his generation better than him. Even if you think drugs hurt the community and we should fight a war against them, putting votes that would have gone to McGwire and Palmerio to someone who otherwise would not have received them simply continues to lower the standards
Managing one of the most improbable champions in sports history is enough to push Hodges past Rice, which is much more of a knock on Rice than a credit to Hodges. . .
<< <i>Perhaps you're not in the know but this has been an ongoing debate with TomG and I. He claims that the front offices knew (or must have know), same difference, that there was widespread use of steroids going on as early as the early 90s. He believes it strongly and I respect his right to believe that but don't except his view, or anyone who would make such a claim, as being factual in anyway (at least for now). I'm assuming that is what you're chiming in on. But as I think about it, I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say by making such a general comment as they "knew". So for clarification purposes, what are you suggesting they "knew"? >>
It isn't factual that baseball had no drug testing? If there is a likelihood that McGwire, Sosa and Bonds were having their pee tested for drugs during their homerun chases I will agree completely that they were cheaters
I guess it is possibly that the majority of the league, the fans, the media and the players didn't know steroids helped sports performance. I guess it is possible that even if they knew there were drugs that improved sports performance, perhaps they thought professional athletes were unique humans and responded to incentives in far different ways than everyone else. On those issues I am only speculating and should perhaps reconsider
<< <i> If players break curfew, the team holds them accountable >>
Exactly. And if the team didn't hold them accountable what would that say about their curfew policy?
Going forward, because they now test for it, it is cheating
<< <i>I apologize. I did not mean to sound dismissive. >>
Fair enough. Looking back, I probably overreacted and I really should have looked the RH homer thing up before posting instead of leaving it as an open ended question.
And it was pretty stupid of me to forget Foxx like that.
<< <i>
<< <i> Dawson are all borderline and most of us who prefer higher standards disagree with the Dawson selection
>>
So you think a 8-time gold glover and 1 of 3 players in history to hit 400 homers and 300 stolen bases is borderline?
>>
So you think a 8-time gold glover and 1 of 3 players in history to hit 400 homers and 300 stolen bases is borderline?
Dawson is definitely one of the weaker members of the HOF...his OBP%, if I'm not mistaken, is the lowest of any outfielder in the HOF..
And playing in the friendly confines of Wrigley Field def helped those power numbers quite a bit..
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.
Edit: The HOF has its share of borderline candidates as it is, while guys like Santo and Blyleven who are even more deserving are shut out. Personally, I'd have no problem if the standards were a little tougher, and I'd certainly have no problem excluding guys like Andre Dawson and Jim Rice, for that matter.
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.
The guy we all saw in Chicago, while still extremely dangerous, was working on pounded knees from playing on that crap in Montreal. In his prime, Dawson was a power hitter who also had speed and defensive prowess to spare. He was one of the elite players in the majors.
<< <i>This is exactly what I was talking about above. Andre Dawson wasn't expected to walk then and penalizing him because people have a different mindset now is about like penalizing guys from the '50's because they didn't steal a lot of bases.
The guy we all saw in Chicago, while still extremely dangerous, was working on pounded knees from playing on that crap in Montreal. In his prime, Dawson was a power hitter who also had speed and defensive prowess to spare. He was one of the elite players in the majors. >>
Indeed. Jon Kruk said Dawson shouldve gone in long before his 9th try. He also said the voting process is a joke. Dawson did everything you could ask a player to do. He could beat you with his arm, bat, and legs. I dont care what his obp was. How many outfielders had 8 gold gloves and 300 stolen bases? Willie mays and Barry Bonds are the only 2 other players to have 400 homers and 300 stolen bases. I would say thats pretty elite company.
When Sosa won his mvp in 98 over mcgwire , the voters didnt penalize Sosa for playing at wrigley lol.
<< <i>This is exactly what I was talking about above. Andre Dawson wasn't expected to walk then and penalizing him because people have a different mindset now is about like penalizing guys from the '50's because they didn't steal a lot of bases.
The guy we all saw in Chicago, while still extremely dangerous, was working on pounded knees from playing on that crap in Montreal. In his prime, Dawson was a power hitter who also had speed and defensive prowess to spare. He was one of the elite players in the majors. >>
You act is if anybody could just decide that they will be an elite hitter. HOF hitters from Dawson's era DID get on base a lot, AND did it while maintaining an elite slugging percentage as well, therefore, they were superior hitters than him.
You say that MLB management expected guys to not walk?? Did they expect their hitters to make outs?
1983 is a prime example. This is one of Dawson's finest years for guys like you. He hit .299, had 32HR, and 113 RBI. He also stole 25 bases.
Yeah, those are very good, but when you look that he made the SECOND MOST OUTS in the league, and he got caught stealing 11 times, it pushes those totals from HOF, to just excellent.
IN 1983
Dawson had a .539 SLG%, and a .338 OB%
Murray had a .538 SLG%, and a .393 OB%.
How come Murray was able to do both?
Some HOF hitters of that era did maintain a high OB% to go with the same slugging percentage. A good evaluator gives the walks the proper weight, which is approximately 2/3 the value of a single.
It amazes me how baseball stupid people are when it comes to walks. The funny thing about it is that these same people will get all over their pitcher when THEY walk a batter. Get it?
Oh, I know what is next..."his job is to drive in runs, blah, blah, blah, and shouldn't walk when there are men on base, blah, blah, blah."
Riddle me this, how come Andre Dawson's career On Base percentage is .312 when he batted with nobody on base???? Do you realize that a base on balls has the same value as a single when a batter has nobody on base??
Oh, here is what is next, "You have to be aggresive, you can't hit a HR if you walk, and it is their job to hit HR's, blah, blah, blah." Then how do other sluggers manage to hit HR's at the same rate and still help their team by walking and getting on base??
Also, some of the BETTER hitters from his era may not chase the pitcher's pitches that do lead to those enormous amount of outs made. They lay off of them, and swing at the pitches that DO lead to the Home RUn type hits. The resulting effect is a lot of HR, a lot of times on base, and a normal amount of outs made.
Injuries, etc... are a different subject, but you are crazy with your sentiments above.
FINALLY, there is no need to guess or argue about the value of players from Dawson's era, because the play by play data is so good, and so precise, that we already know what they did in each situation, and how each hitting event in each situation impacted runs. The valued added batter runs done by retrosheet has all that. Instead of guessing, or making assumptions about walks, just look at the value added batter runs, because it includes ALL of that stuff, including how well they hit with runners on base.
In 1983, Murray had 54.7 adjusted batter runs
In 1983, Dawson had 25.7 adjusted batter runs
That my friend is the difference between a HOF hitter from that era, and just an excellent hitter(defense aside, injury factor aside, career length aside, etc...).
A shortcut to get that info is to look at the OB% and SLG% of the players, and it will lead to a similar conclusion...though that won't include the men on base performances.
My post has nothing to do with Dawson's qualifications as a HOF player, there are other considerations...but when I see first grade analysis on hitting, I have to say something.
<< <i>I am sure you changed everyones minds and will be elected king of all stat geeks. >>
Yep he changed my mind because someone in a different league in 1983 had a better OBP
I hope that the stat guys are using their "offline" time to actually do something usefull with all of their statistical knowledge.
Using stats alone to me does not solve any arguments about who was better. There are alot of other things at play. Stats also do not do a good job of predicting the future in sports but do a good job of analyzing the past. Human beings are poor subjects to try and predict future behavor using statistical modeling.
<< <i>This is exactly what I was talking about above. Andre Dawson wasn't expected to walk then and penalizing him because people have a different mindset now is about like penalizing guys from the '50's because they didn't steal a lot of bases >>
He was expected to do what would best help the Cubs and Expos win games
<< <i>So you think a 8-time gold glover and 1 of 3 players in history to hit 400 homers and 300 stolen bases is borderline? >>
No. I think Evans and Raines were both better, which would put him firmly below the line. . .
I disagree. Stats do help predict the future. I expect Pujols to be good this year, because he has been good in the past and has not been unusually lucky. Past performace is an extremely strong indicator of future performance, if you know what to look at and what to ignore.
He might not have been even the best player on his own team in 1983, as Cal Ripken won the official AL award for MVP !
Dawson, who was likely below Mike Schmidt in the NL 1983, did lead the league in hits, total bases, and extra base hits.
1987 was Dawson's MVP year and his second one leading in total bases, Eddie Murray won the MVP or was the leader in total bases in , well,... never.
Murray did compile 500 HR and 3000 hits, which unquestionably makes him a HOFer.
Andre Dawson, after the votes were counted, is now also unquestionably, an official HOFer, forever.
Is the HOF further diluted ?, it's not an absolute, but, yes probably,.... but soooooo what !
Is any group of all stars all equal, is every member of a graduating class exactly just as smart, does every Art Museum have only true "masterpieces ", are all one's children identical in skill levels, do most collector save only PSA 10 cards ???
Are you joking? A lifetime OPS of .836, OPS+ of 129, OBP% of .359, SLG% .476, over 3,000 hits, 500 HRs, and almost 2K RBIs, and you say he was a compiler of stats? Sure, he compiled awesome stats, if that's what you mean, LOL..
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.
Morgoth, nobody is trying to predict what Andre Dawson is going to do in the future, we are examining what he did in the past. And the best way to examine it is to use the best available evidence. The clowns above simply are not, just as you don't. The funny thing is that the best available evidence is there and is quite accurate.
Hitting in baseball is very accurate to determine worth....with the use of stats. In fact, there is no other thing in team sports that can be evaluated to such a high degree with a statistical analysis, as hitting is. Somebody's opinion on how a guy did is WORTHLESS, just as his opinion is on what he THINKS how much a walk or double, or HR, helps, doesn't help a team.
The real problems rest in the fact that ever since I put your hero Bill Mazeroski's fielding in a different light, you have been like a cry baby and on a crusade against the use of statistical evaluation in baseball.
You, like most, have an agenda to all of your arguments, and it clouds your judgement. Guys who are against the use of OB% or something like that, are on that crusade because it is putting one of their heroes in a different light than what their emotions want them to be. They are not objective...and 99% of sports fans are NOT objective at all.
Much like using Mazeroski's replacements as evidence that he may not have been as good in the field as you believe...
P.S. Morgoth, get off your high horse with your job of fighting diseases. If you were so good, then why were you out of work? I use almost all my time helping children. It is tiring and emotionally draining, so sometimes I take a break and get a laugh by lambasting the clowns on this board about sports.
Also, the HOF is a different debate, as that can have a lot of meanings.
But when people make statements that a low OB% is something that can just be ignored because they think we are retroactively making a base on balls important in Dawson's era, is stupid. If this clown thinks a base on balls was not important back then, then I am sure he was always pleased when the pitcher on his favorite team would walk three guys in the first inning. Morons.
Mickey, are you on dope? Eddie Murray was the best hitter in baseball from 1982-1985, and also happened to be one of the best fielding first basemen those years. He was the best hitter in MLB two of those years individually. Yeah, if you look at faulty stats or something, you may find a case for yours...
Not even close, Dale Murphy is the correct answer.
Perhaps if anyone needs to go back and check stats to determine whether or not a player deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, in my viewpoint that player probably shouldn't get in the Hall of Fame.
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 MVP 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 will add Gil Hodges and Frank Howard- Why?
Hodges was a great clutcher player - long time leader of the NL for Career Grand Slams- Hodges understood the game better than anyone- as a player and a manager
Frank Howard- the man has hit the longest home runs in MLB history- and there are those that will doubt the claim- but for those of us whoever saw him swing a bat understand-
Howard gets in based on strength and what he was able to do well before what the game has become- An honest guy needs to be recognized for what the was in the 1960s and what it is today=
I will turn the clock back if I had the choice
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Here are Murphy's and Murray's year by year situational batter runs from 1982-1985. These the the results from the play by play data, where every at bat in every base/out situation is accounted for already. Each event has the proper weight assigned to it(derived from the play by play data, not the guess work fans usually do). Home ball park is also accounted for.
Year.....Murray......Murphy
1982.....42.7..........37.3
1983.....54.7..........44.6
1984.....59.9..........27.9
1985.....55.4..........45.6
The correct answer is the one I presented already, Murray was the man. Murphy was excellent those years though. Their place in the alphabet was much closer than their place as hitters in those years.
Here is what hurts Murphy. Here are his next five best years....40,39,25,10, 10, and 10. Murphy had his prime four years as posted above, then had three more good to very good years, then was merely average or below for the rest of it.
Murphy's career total was 258
Murray's career total was 510
Keep in mind that Murphy did not play through his old man years with very many at bats, which would actually bring his total down a bit, wheras guys like Murray, or Brett did play until their early 40's where they were still contributing, but not at the same prime level.
Murphy's last full season was through age 35, where had had 8,923 lifetime plate apperances. His OPS+ was 123 at that point. Which is also his career total because he only managed 100 more at bats after age 35.
Murphy's OPS+ sat at 123 through 8,923 lifetime plate appearances
Murray's OPS+ sat at 140 through 9,100 lifetime plate appearances.
Brett's OPS+ sat at 141 through 9,100 lifetime plate appearances
Schmidt's OPS+ sat at 151 as of 9,400 lifetime plate appearances.
Winfield OPS+ was at 135 as of 9,400 lifetime plate appearances
Reggie OPS+ was at 140 as of 9,400 lifetime plate appearances.
OPS+ is not as accurate as the situational batter runs, as Murray and Brett get a boost, and Schmidt and Reggie get a downgrade....but it doesn't help Murphy's cause. As you can see, he was NOT as good as the other HOFers in their prime, and not as good as them in their longevity either. The notion of those other guys as compilers is false. Guys like Murphy, Rice, or Dawson were not as good as them in their primes.
That doesn't mean they can''t be HOFers, but understand their primes' weren't as good as the kings of the era.
HOWEVER>>>>>
Here are the lifetime situational batter runs for....
Dewey Evans 299
Murphy 258
Dawson 251
Lynn 250
Rice 190
Like I said in the Rice debates, it is about fairness, not witch hunts. I was sticking up for the guys like Murphy, Dewey, and Lynn. They, and their families and fans should be up in arms that similar and lesser players are being put into the HOF before them! THe fact that Murphy was actually better than RIce offensively AND defensively, is a travesty that RIce is in, and Murphy not. Plus Murphy has just as much 'fame' as Rice with the two MVP's and clean cut image thing going on. Neither won a WS.
People get angry with me, but it is about being object and fair. Somebody has to fight for the Fred Lynn's, Murphy's, and Dewey's of the world while other lesser players for some reason get all this credit that should not be going their way!
Yeah, if I were Murphy, I would be upset too!!!!
Hodges was a great clutcher player - long time leader of the NL for Career Grand Slams- Hodges understood the game better than anyone- as a player and a manager.
What is the evidence that Hodges was a great clutch player?
He died before I had the opportunity to depose him.
Ask around... you might be surprised
For starters- 14 career grand slams - long time NL leader in that catagory does not hurt the argument.
Look at his world series stats - look the decade of the 1950s and tell me who was a better first baseman?
Look for the evidence and you will find it
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Not even close, Dale Murphy is the correct answer.
Crimson is actually a good illustration of the disconnect between the perception of a player's ability and the reality of that player's abilities. One needs only to read Crimson's sig line to illustrate that point.
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>What is the evidence that Hodges was a great clutch player?
He died before I had the opportunity to depose him.
Ask around... you might be surprised
For starters- 14 career grand slams - long time NL leader in that catagory does not hurt the argument.
Look at his world series stats - look the decade of the 1950s and tell me who was a better first baseman?
Look for the evidence and you will find it >>
q]What is the evidence that Hodges was a great clutch player? He died before I had the opportunity to depose him. Ask around... you might be surprised For starters- 14 career grand slams - long time NL leader in that catagory does not hurt the argument. Look at his world series stats - look the decade of the 1950s and tell me who was a better first baseman? Look for the evidence and you will find it >>
A grand slam in a 10-0 blowout means nothing. As for the world series, are you referring to the one in which he went 0 for 21? Perhaps you should have checked his WS stats. You made a claim, but have not backed it up.
Are you saying that he was a clutch player because you said so? That dog won't hunt. Give me evidence.
Better 1st Baseman- Kluszewski, Adco*k, Musial
1982.....42.7..........37.3
1983.....54.7..........44.6
1984.....59.9..........27.9
1985.....55.4..........45.6
For some reason, I just cannot understand those numbers. In 84, Murray was twice the player was?
Here are a few more numbers, so sayeth my 86 Topps cards.
1982
..................MURRAY.......MURPHY
AVG...............316*............281
HR.................32................36*
RBI................110..............109
H...................174*............168
SB.................7..................23*
R...................87................113*
Awards.........nada............MVP*
GP.................151.............162*
Advantage:Murphy. Close call, but the MVP hardware seals the deal.
1983
....................MURRAY........MURPHY
AVG................306*.............302
HR..................33.................36*
RBI.................111...............121*
H....................178...............178
SB...................5...................30
R.....................115...............131*
Awards...........nada.............MVP*
GP..................156................162*
Advantage: Murphy, Getting in the 30/30 club makes him the winner.
1984
.....................MURRAY.......MURPHY
AVG.................306*.............290
HR...................29.................36*
RBI..................110*.............100
H.....................180...............185*
SB...................10.................19*
R......................97*...............94
Award.............nada.............NL HR Champ*
GP...................162................162
Advantage: Murray. He out-hit, out-scored, and knocked in more, all while playing a full season.
1985
...............MURRAY.........MURPHY
AVG...........297................300*
HR.............31...................37*
RBI............124*..............111
H...............173................176*
SB.............5.....................10*
R...............111.................118*
Award.......nada............NL HR Champ, Top AllStar vote getter*
GP.............156.................162*
Advantage: Murphy, .300 hitter leading his league in homers.
Both had a great run form 82 to 85, but I would clearly choose to have Murphy on my team over those four years. He never missed a game.
I will note that SO were omitted from those stats and Murphy did strike out more.
somewhat short-sighted to feel it is easily the best one to evaluate a player. No stats take into account all possible variations, the opposing pitcher quality, the team position in the pennant race, the weather, the defense and its shifts, and many other possible alterations. RC or runs created was once thought to be the new end-all stat to evaluate a hitter.
A very good stat is Wins above replacement, or WAR as it is often called, it also tries to measure defense, baserunning contributions, and the position played, in addition to hitting.
1982 through 1985,
Dale Murphy, averaged being the 6.75 th best player in his league.
Eddie Murray, averaged being the 6.25 th best player in his league
1982 through 1985, using the Adjusted Batting Wins stat, and also the Offensive Win % stat,
Murphy and Murray led or were runner-up , 4 and 3 times respectively.
1982 through 1985. using traditional triple crown hitting titles and MVP awards,
Dale 6, Eddie 0.
Always debatable and somewhat subjective, it seems the two were very similar for that time span.
In the 1953 World Series, Hodges hit .364; he had three hits including a homer in the 9-5 Game 1 loss. The Dodgers lost in six games to the Yankees.
In 1954, Hodgeshad a great season- setting the team home run record for the Dodgers, a .304 batting average, lead the NL in putouts (1381) and assists (132). He was second in the league to Ted Kluszewski in home runs and had 130 RBI's. Total bases 335, slugging % at .579 and and runs 106.
The 1955 season .289 average, 27 HRs and 102 RBI, but the year ended with a most satisfying conclusion. While you may be right that Hodges struggled in the first few games of the 1955 series going
1-for-12 in the first three games. In Game 4, things dramatically turned- he hit a 2-run homer in the fourth inning to put Brooklyn ahead 4-3, and later had an RBI single as they held off the Yankees 8-5. Hodges scored the first run in the 5-3 win in Game 5. In Game 7 he drove in Campanella with two out in the fourth for a 1-0 lead, and added a sacrifice fly to score Reese with one out in the sixth. Johnny Podres scattered eight New York hits, and when Reese threw Elston Howard's grounder to Hodges for the final out, Brooklyn had a 2-0 win and the first World Series title in franchise history. Hodges had both RBI's in the World Series game that mattered to Brooklyn fans- 1955 was the year they beat the Yankees and it would not have happened without Hodges.
In 1956, Hodges had 32 home runs and 87 RBI as Brooklyn and met the Yankees in the World Series again. In the third inning of Game 1 he hit a 3-run homer to put Brooklyn ahead 5-2, and they went on to a 6-3 win; he had three hits and four RBI in Game 2's 13-8 slugfest, scoring to give the Dodgers a 7-6 lead in the third and doubling in two runs each in the fourth and fifth innings for an 11-7 lead. In Game 5 he struck out, flied to center and lined to third base in Don Larsen's perfect game. Brooklyn lost in seven games.
In 1957, Hodges had another great season-set the NL career grand slams and finished seventh in the NL with a .299 batting average and fifth with 98 RBI, 27 HRs 7 triples and slugging %at .511 and lead the NL with 1317 putouts.
In late September he drove in the last Dodger run ever at Ebbets Field, and also the last run in Brooklyn history.
Hodges became the seventh player to hit 300 home runs in the NL, in 1958. He finished with 22 HRs and 64 RBI, however things changed in 1959. The Dodgers captured the pennant, with Hodges contributing 25 HRs and 80 RBI and hitting .276, with a .513 slugging mark and led the NL with a .992 fielding average.
Hodges batted .391 in the 1959 World Series against the Chicago White Sox (his first against a non-Yankee team), with his solo home run in the eighth inning of Game 4 giving the Dodgers a 5-4 win, as they triumphed in six games for another Series championship. In 1960 he broke Kiner's NL record for right-handed hitters of 351 career home runs.
Manager of the NY Mets- priceless- and that is coming from a die hard Cubs fan
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>But when people make statements that a low OB% is something that can just be ignored because they think we are retroactively making a base on balls important in Dawson's era, is stupid. If this clown thinks a base on balls was not important back then, then I am sure he was always pleased when the pitcher on his favorite team would walk three guys in the first inning. Morons. >>
Even if I had actually maintained any of that in the stereotypical fashion that you claim I did, is any of this really worth tossing around these kinds of insults over? Really?
This is what I wrote:
<< <i>This is exactly what I was talking about above. Andre Dawson wasn't expected to walk then and penalizing him because people have a different mindset now is about like penalizing guys from the '50's because they didn't steal a lot of bases. >>
I didn't endorse the mindset of disdaining walks and being aggressive. I merely noted it's existence. There is a signifigant difference in the two things.
You went on to build a signifigant case revolving around the comparision between Dawson and Eddie Murray. Highlights of this include:
<< <i>1983 is a prime example. This is one of Dawson's finest years for guys like you. He hit .299, had 32HR, and 113 RBI. He also stole 25 bases.
IN 1983
Dawson had a .539 SLG%, and a .338 OB%
Murray had a .538 SLG%, and a .393 OB%.
How come Murray was able to do both?
Some HOF hitters of that era did maintain a high OB% to go with the same slugging percentage. A good evaluator gives the walks the proper weight, which is approximately 2/3 the value of a single. >>
and
<< <i>FINALLY, there is no need to guess or argue about the value of players from Dawson's era, because the play by play data is so good, and so precise, that we already know what they did in each situation, and how each hitting event in each situation impacted runs. The valued added batter runs done by retrosheet has all that. Instead of guessing, or making assumptions about walks, just look at the value added batter runs, because it includes ALL of that stuff, including how well they hit with runners on base.
In 1983, Murray had 54.7 adjusted batter runs
In 1983, Dawson had 25.7 adjusted batter runs
That my friend is the difference between a HOF hitter from that era, and just an excellent hitter(defense aside, injury factor aside, career length aside, etc...). >>
All of which is really nice, except for the fact that I agree with the assertion that Eddie was the superior hitter. I won't go deeply into it but I argue for Murray's transcendent greatness all the time and the one argument I always encounter most is Mickey's "compiler" one, which isn't one that holds much water with me. For whatever good my opinion as a "moron" may be worth.
My sole important assertion in this post is that Dawson qualifies as a Hall of Famer. Powederd H2O's post covers it well:
<< <i>The argument that Eddie Murray was a better player than Andre Dawson in 1983 is a really good one. Except that Eddie Murray was better than almost everyone in 1983. Eddie Murray is a first ballot Hall of Famer. Dawson was not. Nobody in their right mind would argue that Andre Dawson was a better player than Eddie Murray. If I take Brooks Robinson and I put his hitting numbers up against Hank Aaron, guess what? Brooks looks weak. But does that mean that Brooks isn't a HOFer just because he pales in comparison to one of the greats of the game? There are no rankings inside the Hall of Fame. It is a simple "in" or "out". What standard do you hold Andre Dawson to? Saberman, you obviously hold Dawson to the Eddie Murray standard. And that's ok. I'd be ok with that if the Hall of Fame made the cutoff at Eddie Murray. It would be very exclusive and it would be only for the elite. But the Hall has not made Eddie Murray the standard. The standard is much lower. There are a number of position players with plaques in Cooperstown that are nowhere near as good as Andre Dawson. Or Tim Raines. Or Dwight Evans. Or Dick Allen, Dale Murphy, Steve Garvey, etc.... Does Andre Dawson match up with the BEST of the Hall of Fame? No, clearly. But does he match up with the WORST of the Hall of Fame. Yes, he does. So, he is in. Not by much. But he's in. >>
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to put on my big red shoes and go climb back into the little car with all of the fellas.
On Base Percentage
Murray vs Murphy
.391 .378 1982
.393 .393 1983
.410 .372 1984
.383 .388 1985
OPS +
Murray vs Murphy
156 142 1982
156 149 1983
156 149 1984
149 152 1985
Awards mean nothing when comparing players from different leagues. Yes, Murphy won two MVP's. Good for him. In 1982 he beat out the legendary Lonnie Smith for the MVP. Murray finished second in the AL to HOFer Robin Yount who was having arguably his best season. Murphy won the 1983 MVP against a fine class. But Murray finished second in the AL again to another HOFer, Cal Ripken Jr. Murphy finished ninth in 1984, while Murray finished 4th in the AL. In 1985, Murphy finished 7th. Murray finished 5th. So, the average of the two is Murphy finished at an average of 4.5, while Murray finished at an average of 3.3. But again, they played in different leagues, so comparing them is moot. But if you DID compare them, Murphy loses.
As far as Murray being a stat compiler, well, yeah... He compiled them while winning a World Series and a lot of division titles and some gold gloves. He finished in the Top Six in the AL MVP voting for six straight years. Not only is Eddie Murray a HOFer, he is one of the better HOFers!!!
From 1982 to 1984 Eddie Murray was awarded the Gold Glove, giving him a total of 3 for this time span.
From 1982 to 1985 Dale Murphy was awarded the Gold Glove, giving him a total of four.
Both were great, but I would still take Murphy.
Murphy did have a lower on base% for the entire four years and still was able to score more runs. Murphy's speed is often over looked. He was one of the first to enter the 30/30 club. His speed lead to more runs produced.
You have to be pretty fast to win five straight golden glove awards in centerfield.
<< <i>I choose the first seven applicable stats on a 1986 Fleer Star sticker. >>
That pretty much says it all. With that, you overlook very important aspects, and give incorrect weight to very important factors. Thus come up with very important errors.
The situational batter runs includes all the stuff you have listed, and also all the stuff you did NOT list.
Plus it also includes each event in each base/out situation, i.e a home run with the bases loaded, as compared to nobody on.
The 1984 number you see does not mean Murray was twice as better as Murphy. Zero means league average. Murray was 59.9 runs above a league average performer...Murphy 29.
If you are interested in looking for truth and accuracy, then retrosheet.org is a good place to start. If you are looking for a place to justify your feelings when objective accurate analysis says different, then this board is probably a good place to be.
If you want the MOST accurate analysis for players from that era, then situational batter runs is THE thing to use.
Jaxxr, the situational batter runs can't be perfect...and according to Stephen Hawking, nothing is perfect in the universe.
However, some things are superior than others...and the situational batter runs is so far superior to the other things being used, that it is like comparing the body shape of Bo Derek to that of Anne Ramsey