Speaking of Hall of Famers....I just have to ask....

KalineFan

I was looking over the upcoming nominees for 2012 (NOT THAT IMPRESSIVE, I must say!)

There is one guy I just want everyone's opinion on........Alan Trammell Detroit Tigers....just opinion....does he make it this time ?
(OR EVER, as far as that goes!)

Ok then, how about the other "TOP PROSPECTS":
(Rank is based on % of previous Ballots voted on)
1) Barry Larkin
2) Jack Morris
3) Lee Smith
4) Jeff Bagwell
5) Tim Raines
6) Edgar Martinez
7) Alan Trammell
8) Larry Walker
9) Mark McGwire
10) Fred McGriff
11) Don Mattingly
12) Dale Murphy
13) Rafael Palmeiro
14) Juan Gonzalez

First timers:
Bernie Williams
Vinny Castilla
Javy Lopez
Ruben Sierra
Jeff Nelson (WHO THE HECK IS THIS?)
Jeromy Burnitz
Tim Salmon
Mike Mattheny (Once again, WHO THE HECK IS THIS?)
Edgardo Alfonzo
Danny Graves
Scott Ericson
Tony Womack
Jeff Fassero (One last time, WHO THE HECK IS THIS?)
Phil Nevin
Carl Everett
Brian Jordan
Eric Young

Tony
KalineFan

hammered

If I had a vote, my first pick would be McGwire. I realize I'm part of a small minority.

Not only do his career power #s warrant entrance to the HOF, but he did more than anyone else to bring fans back to the game after the '94 strike (even more than Ripken) - his '98 season brought millions of new fans to the game when baseball needed it.

In my opinion, he is a top-3 all time home run hitter, not only because of the # he hit and how frequently he hit them (His HR-AB ratio is the best in history), but also cuz of how far they travelled and how much fan interest his homers generated, even before the '98 season. A lot of players accumulate a pile of homers without much fanfare. It seemed like every one of McGwire's 583 homers was a no-doubter. To me, he was always exciting to watch, and that's what sports should be all about. How many can honestly say that they were excited to watch Barry Larkin play?

And McGwire's a good guy who does an enormous amount of work for children's charities.

But there's the PED thing, which despite his admission + apology, the writers are not likely to forgive.

Last year he got 19% of the vote, which I honestly find amazing. So I don't see him ever getting 75%, which is a shame.

My 2 cents.

JoeBanzai

Seems like Trammell was a really good fielder and a great hitting shortstop. Big year in1987, but I think that was a big year for a lot of guys. I say put him in. Let's put Walker in as well, but let's make the steroid guys wait.

Looks like a lot more than three "who the heck is this" on the first timers to me though. As a Twins fan Scott Ericson sure was good until he got hurt.

Hammered, Mcgwire was great, and he might be a wonderful guy, but I think steroids keep anyone out that used them. As far as bringing back fans after the strike, we should measure that against what the PED scandal is doing to baseball in the long run, it's just sad.

Still love baseball. GO TWINS!

Joe

MantleMarisFordBerra

There are some good guys on that list (Trammell, Mattingly, McGriff, Larkin etc...)that you could make an argument for. But my thing is, if you let everyone in that you could make an argument for, soon everyone will be in. Especially because it seems voters play the whole "Well, if we let ___ in, then how can we not let ____ in?" game. I personally have no problem with no one getting elected. I guess I'm one of the fans who feel The Hall should be reserved for All Time Greats & legends.



Reminds me of a quote from the movie The Incredibles:

"I'll give them heroics. I'll give them the most spectacular heroics they've ever seen! And when I'm old and I've had my fun, I'll sell my inventions so everyone can be superheroes! Everyone can be super! And when everyone's super, [laughs maniacally] no-one will be."

Dialj

There are a few in the "Top Prospect" list that you could say "well, so and so is in, so why not ____" (i.e. Smith, Murphy, Raines), but from the "First Timers" list I just don't see any with incredible numbers. I too, don't have a problem with the HOF not selecting anyone. JMHO.

dontippet

Mark McGwire is my first choice. Second, is Tim Raines. Third is Barry Larkin. The 2012 class is unusually weak.

jdip9

+1 for no-elections in 2012.

digicat

<< <i>Mike Mattheny (Once again, WHO THE HECK IS THIS?) >>



Mattheny was an all leather, no lumber defensive catcher who won 4 gold gloves in the NL during his career (3 with the Cards, 1 with the Giants). He sustained one too many concussions though, and retired after 2006. Sadly, he's still dealing with post-concussion syndrome to this day. He's not a hall of famer though.

zendude

Trammell isn't going to make it in. I think Bagwell and Raines are the most deserving but it's hard to predict the voting trends. Larkin has a shot.

TheTalkingWalnut

Disclosure: I am the world's biggest Yankee hater. Having said that and having grown up in NY, I am truly surprised that Mattingly doesn't get more love. Maybe I was just brainwashed by Scooter, White and Murcer but it sure seemed to me that Mattingly WAS all the things that people are saying Jeter is. I don't have a lot of respect for Jeter and ARod now that they've been caught cheating (albeit in different ways) but I can honestly remember being scared every time Mattingly came to the plate.

Card guys I think, will love Trammell more than the BBWA will. The back of his card is impressive: one team, no major portions lost to injury, very consistent. He's the kind of guy who attracts people into collecting cards. I say he probably isn't HOF worthy, but if they start letting steroids guys in*, they should vote Trammell in twice.

*People (including, recently, Bob Costas) forget that there were more to steroids than just hitting lots of long HRs. How did so many otherwise mediocre players amass so many ostensibly impressive statistics. Biggio, Bagwell, Thome, Damon, maybe even St Derek. Or maybe baseball just "forgot" where the DL was during the Selig Era. I know this isn't a popular position to take, but nobody can prove a negative. They all laughed at Canseco and he turned out to be pretty much spot effing on...

PS Raines is a YES. Guy was a stud for many years, overshadowed by Rickey.

Statman

I think in a weak class, Larkin will probably get in. I don't really think anyone from this list deserves it, however. I'd put Raines, Bagwell, and Morris in before Larkin.

Might be interesting to see how many votes Bernie Williams gets - he's not a HOFer, but playing his whole career with the Yankees may give him a little boost.

digicat

Here are the guys with their last 5 vote percentages (recent to oldest):

1) Barry Larkin (62.1, 51.6)
2) Jack Morris (53.5, 52.3, 44.0, 42.9, 37.1)
3) Lee Smith (45.3, 47.3, 44.5, 43.3, 39.8)
4) Jeff Bagwell (41.7)
5) Tim Raines (37.5, 30.4, 22.6, 24.3)
6) Edgar Martinez (32.9, 36.2)
7) Alan Trammell (24.3, 22.4, 17.4, 18.2, 13.4)
8) Larry Walker (20.3)
9) Mark McGwire (19.8, 23.7, 21.9, 23.6, 23.5)
10) Fred McGriff (17.9, 21.5)
11) Don Mattingly (13.6, 16.1, 11.9, 15.8, 9.9)
12) Dale Murphy (12.6, 11.7, 11.5, 13.8, 9.2)
13) Rafael Palmeiro (11.0)
14) Juan Gonzalez (5.2)


Larkin's probably gonna get in by himself. No one else from this class will get elected.
Juan Gone gets less than 5% and falls off the ballot.
Bernie Williams will be the only first timer who'll get enough votes to stay on the ballot. He'll probably get between 15 and 20% (maybe even higher) due to his being a major member of 6 pennant winning Yankee teams. He'll never get in though.

Every other first timer will not get enough votes and will fall off the ballot.

MantleMarisFordBerra

<< <i>Disclosure: I am the world's biggest Yankee hater. Having said that and having grown up in NY, I am truly surprised that Mattingly doesn't get more love. Maybe I was just brainwashed by Scooter, White and Murcer but it sure seemed to me that Mattingly WAS all the things that people are saying Jeter is. I don't have a lot of respect for Jeter and ARod now that they've been caught cheating (albeit in different ways) but I can honestly remember being scared every time Mattingly came to the plate.
>>



No doubt, for a 4 or 5 year run in the mid 80's, Donnie Baseball was "Da Man". I think the reason he hasn't been voted is because he didn't stick around long enough to collect some of the magic numbers - 3,000 hits for example. Also, he retired just before the Yankees late 90's dynasty started. Nonetheless, he does have a .300+ lifetime batting avg, NINE gold gloves (wow!) an MVP award, 8 time All Star, 3 Silver Slugger awards, a Batting Crown, etc...and of course was one of the most respected players in the game.

Who knows, maybe one day he'll get in. I definitely think that if he guides a team to a World Series Championship as a manger that will be more than enough to push him over the edge. Let's hope!!

lanemyer85

I think some of you guys are short-changing Larkin's career. Had he been more health-fortunate, he'd be well ahead of Jeter at this stage. Jeter will likely pass Larkin with a few more decent years, but right now Larkin is right there with Jeter, if not ahead of him, in terms of total value.

Jeter is .314/.385/.452, 117 OPS+ for his career with 70.4 fWAR, 70.1 rWAR and 64.3 WARP, 348 Career Wins Shares

Larkin is .295/.371/.444, 116 OPS+ for his career with 69.8 fWAR, 68.9 rWAR and 86.2 WARP. 349 Career Win Shares, 1995 MVP.

For all the fWAR SS qualifiers with at least 25 wins, Jeter has BY FAR the worst defensive numbers of any SS. Only Michael Young (-71.6) and Toby Harrah (-97.0) have worse than a -50 run value for defense, Jeter's is -113.4. Larkin also led the ML in total range factor 6 times in his career.

Larkin is well ahead of other SS currently in the Hall - in Career Win Shares. Rizzuto (231), Bancroft (269), Joe Sewell (277), Lou Boudreau (277), Luis Aparicio (293), Maranville (302), PW Reese (314), Ozzie Smith (325), Joe Cronin (333), btw Alan Trammell (who along with Raines, is getting the total shaft in terms of pure vote counts is at 318).


KalineFan, fun fact, Jeff Fassero had a higher career K/9 than Bob Gibson (7.3 to 7.2..without the raised mound).

Brick

I see Larkin as the most deserving to get in.

Estil

As most here may or may not know, Mattingly was my boyhood idol (because he's from nearby Evansville, IN) but frankly I've all but given up hope on him ever getting in the HOF. He's most similar to Kirby Puckett and even more so to Ryne Sandberg. But what put Sandberg over the top was probably the fact that he was more consistent and fielding 2B is much tougher than 1B. As for Kirby, well those two shiny rings in just five years (for a small market team no less) no doubt helped his case (though I was SHOCKED he got in on the first ballot; HOFer I could understand, but first ballot??????).

Donnie meanwhile, I think literally came up one season short. If it had not been for the 1994 strike or if he had just stuck around one more year, he'd have his championship and I bet would've made the HOF no later than second or third ballot.

markj111

Raines is incredibly well qualified for the HOF. I would also vote for Larkin, Bagwell, and Trammell. In re to the original poster, I must question the credibility of anyone who does not know who those three players were.

Tabe

<< <i>Donnie meanwhile, I think literally came up one season short. If it had not been for the 1994 strike or if he had just stuck around one more year, he'd have his championship and I bet would've made the HOF no later than second or third ballot. >>


It ain't the lack of a championship that's keeping Mattingly out. It's the 6 seasons at the end of his career where he hit just 58 HRs total, putting up SLG% of .335/.394/.416/.445/.411/.413.

Tabe

TheTalkingWalnut

Good thread so far! I recently did the math: take away 20 feet from say 15 of McGwire's Hrs each year and you get..........Dave Kingman. .235 and 38 HRs, just for argument's sake. Now what might have McGwire had access to that Kingman didn't?????


I don't know much about Dave Kingman but I was alive during his era and I can guess that while he didn't have access to stanziprol or duprimadol or whatever the fancy names for cheating are these days, he probably got his stats from beer, steaks and groupies. And that makes me far more likely to support him than some faux All American Boy full of chemicals.

mcadams

Take a step back from the "career" numbers for a moment. Ask yourself who on that list dominated the game while at their peak? And ask yourself who did you REALLY want to go to the stadium to see play?

In my opinion, if someone was dominant for a stretch and great for most of their career, that is what matters. I don't care if they didn't play for 20 years to amass any of the magic #'s and fell short of 500HR or 3000HITS because they only played 13 or 14 years instead and chose to leave the game before they started to suck.

The player on that list who was most dominant for a stretch was Dale Murphy. Other than maybe Mike Schmidt, there was not a better player in the early and mid 80's in all of MLB. If you win back to back MVP awards as the best player in your league and are a consistently a great player for over a decade, leading the league in HR, RBIs and other power stats on numerous occasions throughout your career, that is enough in my opinion.

The only thing Murphy seems to lack in some voters minds is that last 3 or 4 years of his career where he could have juiced his stats to hit the "magic career numbers". Those last years would have been worthless and is not what would have defined his career anyway. Murphy should be in.

*Edited for spelling only.

mcadams

I'll also add that I think Bagwell and McGwire should be in. Besides having the right #'s that all the pundits seem to care about, they pass the fan sniff test. In my lifetime, did I ever consider going to a game just to see them play? Absolutely. In fact, I drove to the Astros spring training camp just to see Bagwell and Biggio.

Does Tim Raines pass the fan sniff test? No, not even close.

melvin289

<< <i>Take a step back from the "career" numbers for a moment. Ask yourself who on that list dominated the game while at their peak? And ask yourself who did you REALLY want to go to the stadium to see play?

In my opinion, if someone was dominant for a stretch and great for most of their career, that is what matters. I don't care if they didn't play for 20 years to amass any of the magic #'s and fell short of 500HR or 3000HITS because they only played 13 or 14 years instead and chose to leave the game before they started to suck.

The player on that list who was most dominant for a stretch was Dale Murphy. Other than maybe Mike Schmidt, there was not a player in the early and mid 80's. If you win back to back MVP awards as the best player in your league and are a consistently a great player for over a decade, leading the league in HR, RBIs and other power stats on numerous occasions throughout your career, that is enough in my opinion.

The only thing Murphy seems to lack in some voters minds is that last 3 or 4 years of his career where he could have juiced his stats to hit the "magic career numbers". Those last years would have been worthless and is not what would have defined his career anyway. Murphy should be in. >>




You must also look at the quality of team he played for most of his career. It's hard to fly with the eagles when you are surrounded by turkeys. The Braves, for the most part, were not a quality team when Murphy played for them. Even the newspaper writer and humorist Lewis Grizard said that the Braves had finally managed to pull Murphy down to their level. I agree that Murphy should be in the Hall. On top of his stats was the example he set as a decent human being and was a good role model for kids. Compared to most players of his time the man was a saint. Dale Murphy was good for baseball.

Ron

stangrider

Dale Murphy had a great interview on the Jim Rome show this past Thursday. He answered questions regarding the PED era of the late 80's and Rome gave him his blessing as being deserving of the HOF as well. Hard to believe his percentage of the vote is so low. Shameful really.

KalineFan

markj111 Wow

I ask an opinion of everyone on Trammell, among others, list (3) guys I don't know who they are.
and then you make a statement

".....In re to the original poster, I must QUESTION the CREDIBILITY of anyone who does not know
who those three players are...."

I send you a private message asking what kind of comment that was supposed to be and you call me "TESTY" ?

Then you say in your message " Anyone who does not know who they are OBVIOUSLY does not follow baseball closely
(or is very young).

You don't know me. You don't know anything about me. So stop making judgements on someone
you don't know at all.

Tony
KalineFan

Chargers49ersTigers

if trammell and whitaker would have been yankees they'd both already be in the hall.

CEOBIDMC

Larkin is a lock for next year.

Raines has the numbers, but he wont get the votes.

McGriff would get my vote.

No support for the roids' boys (mcgwire, Bagwell) hope they never get in

PowderedH2O

I think Larkin is a lock. I think Raines SHOULD be a lock. Dale Murphy... at a 121 OPS+, he currently is tied for #312 All-Time with such luminaries as Jeff Burroughs, Wes Covington, and Zeke Bonura... and shortly behind such legends as Brian Downing, Hal McRae, and Jason Thompson. This is not to say Dale Murphy was not a fine player. He was. But to place him in the Hall of Fame? No. Not at that level. For about five seasons he was at that level. For a couple more seasons he played at a low level HOF level. From 1980-1987, Murphy had five great seasons, two good seasons, and one ok season. Other than that, he was a mediocre/average player at best. Recently, Jim Rice was elected and that received a LOT of criticism. Rice's numbers offensively are much better than Murphy's. Forget Murphy. Let's talk about Dick Allen!!!

digicat

<< <i>if trammell and whitaker would have been yankees they'd both already be in the hall. >>



Being a 70s/80s Yankee hasn't helped Mattingly, Munson, or Guidry. Why do you think it'd help Trammell or Whitaker?

Tabe

<< <i>Recently, Jim Rice was elected and that received a LOT of criticism. Rice's numbers offensively are much better than Murphy's. Forget Murphy. Let's talk about Dick Allen!!! >>


It's worth remembering that Murphy was also an outstanding baserunner and was an elite defensive CF as well. He was absolutely the #1 player in all of baseball in 1982/83.

Tabe

PowderedH2O

I still believe that Mike Schmidt was the best player in baseball in 1982 and 1983 (actually 1980-1984 every single year). He outhit Murphy, and there was no finer defensive player than Schmidt at that time. Murphy was a great player, but he was a great player for a brief period of time. Much like Roger Maris or George Foster.

Tabe

<< <i>I still believe that Mike Schmidt was the best player in baseball in 1982 and 1983 (actually 1980-1984 every single year). He outhit Murphy, and there was no finer defensive player than Schmidt at that time. Murphy was a great player, but he was a great player for a brief period of time. Much like Roger Maris or George Foster. >>


Can't go wrong with taking Schmidt at that time. If Murphy wasn't #1, he was certainly 1A with Schmidt. I would give Murphy the nod over Schmidt because of his speed & baserunning and that he played more of a premium defensive position. But I ain't going to pick on somebody for taking Schmidt.

Tabe

Dialj

Don't get me wrong on this one, I like Murphy; but there only three ways I see him getting into the HOF
1. Some high profile sports writer endorses him
2. Veterans Committee
3. Pays at the door

Saberman

<< <i>Good thread so far! I recently did the math: take away 20 feet from say 15 of McGwire's Hrs each year and you get..........Dave Kingman. .235 and 38 HRs, just for argument's sake. Now what might have McGwire had access to that Kingman didn't?????


I don't know much about Dave Kingman but I was alive during his era and I can guess that while he didn't have access to stanziprol or duprimadol or whatever the fancy names for cheating are these days, he probably got his stats from beer, steaks and groupies. And that makes me far more likely to support him than some faux All American Boy full of chemicals. >>



According to Jaxxr's methodology, Kingman is a HOFer.

mcadams

<< <i>Don't get me wrong on this one, I like Murphy; but there only three ways I see him getting into the HOF
1. Some high profile sports writer endorses him
2. Veterans Committee
3. Pays at the door >>



Funny stuff with #3, I laughed out loud there. Seriously though.....Several sports writers have not only endorsed him, but they've singled him out as someone who MOST deserves a nod at this point. Joe Posnanski at cnnsi.com has written numerous articles about Murphy's exclusion from HOF.

mcadams

<< <i> Dale Murphy... at a 121 OPS+, he currently is tied for #312 All-Time with such luminaries as Jeff Burroughs, Wes Covington, and Zeke Bonura... >>



How many times did those guys lead the league in real stats like HR, RBI etc.? What about MVP awards? Were any of them consistent all-stars? The "adjusted" stats seriously drive me nuts when people throw those around as if they have any bearing on HOF worthiness. We're talking about the Hall of FAME, not the hall of bizarre statistical achievement.

CEOBIDMC

I agree Mcadams, Murphy is a 2 time MVP and the level of class, honor and distinction that he would bring to the Hall is something many candidates simply dont possess. Personally Roger Maris and Munson both deserve to be in the Hall, their exclusion is an insult to the game.

PowderedH2O

Murphy is definitely one of the top 100 players not in the HOF. McAdams, based upon your scales, once someone has a few good years and leads the league in some things and wins an MVP or two they should be in the HOF. There are a number of guys that have put together really nice stretches of 5-7 years in which they were great that are not in the HOF. Mattingly, Maris, Foster, and Cecil Fielder are good examples. But what I find amusing is how you keep changing your criteria. A few weeks ago you were doing your Brian McCann cheerleading and dissing Joe Mauer. Well, based upon your criteria, Mauer should retire now, because he is already in the HOF. He's a famous guy who has had a few all-star seasons, has led the league in tangible stats, and has won an MVP. Oh wait... he is missing the key ingredient. He isn't an Atlanta Brave. Dale Murphy was a great player for a short time. Too short for the HOF. But, in 20 years or so, some Veterans Committee folks will probably put him in along with the Hack Wilsons and the Earl Averills of the world, and the Hall will be watered down just a little bit more. Heck, let's get Rafael Ramirez elected too while we are at it, and every other Atlanta Brave. Biff Pocoroba?

mcadams

Please show me where I "dissed" Joe Mauer. I am well aware that the majority of baseball followers believe Mauer is the best catcher (lets pretend he still IS a catcher) in MLB. I was simply putting forth the argument that there is a tradeoff between Mauer and McCann....McCann has more power and I believe the gap in their power will become more evident as more time passes...and Mauer will always hit outhit McCann by 20 or 30 points. My only point is that for several years there was no debate and we're closer to the point now where a real debate can be had that McCann is catching up, or has already caught up. If Mauer hits 30 HR a year, there is no debate. But when Mauer is only hitting 8 or 9 HR, then his amazing batting average becomes more understandable.

Saberman

<< <i>

<< <i> Dale Murphy... at a 121 OPS+, he currently is tied for #312 All-Time with such luminaries as Jeff Burroughs, Wes Covington, and Zeke Bonura... >>



How many times did those guys lead the league in real stats like HR, RBI etc.? What about MVP awards? Were any of them consistent all-stars? The "adjusted" stats seriously drive me nuts when people throw those around as if they have any bearing on HOF worthiness. We're talking about the Hall of FAME, not the hall of bizarre statistical achievement. >>



OPS+ is a real stat, much like all the other more accurate measurements that are more precise in determining the value/goodness of a player, than that of many of the archaic stats that fans like to use.

Seems more like you are discounting them because they haven't been around as long as the 'traditional' ones that were widely used to measure players in yesteryear...and since Murphy doesn't stack up in the more accurate measurements, you simply go just far enough back to the measurements where he may stack up in.

You do realize that the prevailing stats in measuring players that were around the longest are Hits, Runs, and Batting Average.

So I wonder why you don't go to the most traditional measurements of players then?

Murphy doesn't even crack the top 1,000 in MLB history in batting average, yes the top 1,000!

Murphy ranks 168th in Runs scored.

Muraphy ranks 207th in hits.

We can even add the stats that came after(or were less important than) the traditional ones. He ranked 50th in HR, and 118th in RBI.

You seem to like the triple crown stats so much, so lets see his average rank in the triple crown stats....

His average rank in the triple crown stats is just north of 390th all-time.

Maybe you should have just stuck with, and been happy with, his 312th OPS+ all time ranking



PS. If you don't 'believe' in what the advanced measurements do, then guys like Andruw Jones and Jim Edmonds are Murphy's equals offensively...and COMPLETELY blow Murphy out of the water defensively. Ellis Burks too

Lets also be fair about Murphy's defense. He was OK as a defender in CF. But it isn't so much that.

He played 9,045 innings in CF
He played 6,445 innnings in RF
He played 1,780 innings at 1B
He played 694 innings in LF

He was just as much a corner man as he was a CF. If you were questioning Mauer's status as being defined as a catcher, you had better do the same(and then some) to Murphy's as a centerfielder!


HOWEVER, there is no denying that Murphy had a very nice six year peak any way you slice it! He had a six year stretch with an OPS+ of 145, and was consistently near that mark throughout that peak. That is very nice. But to be fair, you have to compare that with other players who may have had similar stretches.

George Foster had a 7 year peak with an OPS+ of 149...and they won two World Series.

mcadams

Blah blah blah. Thanks for sharing your spreadsheet results. I understand your point of view and your reliance on numbers. You are compelled by "fairness" and hate to include Popularity, which you see as meaningless. But I've literally been to thousands of MLB games over the last 20 years across 3 NL cities. I know who the fans come out to see and I know who's made the game "special". Murphy was one of them and his popularity wasn't limited to Atlanta. A lot of the value that he added will never show up in your stats. Some day we'll meet in the middle and you'll accept that what I'm describing is really relevant to the HOF because its also very relevant to the game. Until then, long live OPS squared.

melvin289

Mcadams speaks of whom the fans come to see play. In July of 1990 we made the trip to Philly to see the Braves play the Phils. A family was sitting behind us at one of the games and were all wearing Braves hats. I asked where they were from. Their answer was that they lived about 40 miles outside Philly. They said they couldn't get the Phils on TV but could get the Braves every time they played due to cable. They wanted their children to see Dale Murphy play since he was such a good example for their children.

You didn't mention the fact that Murphy was also a one time catcher. mcadams I expect you to understand this statement. No one ever stole center field while Murphy was catching.

Ron

Saberman

Mcadams,

Just be consistent in your arguments, and be logical in the measures you are choosing to use to exemplify your point. Afterall, you did use numbers yourself...you just used some of the more inaccurate ones to determine a players' value/ability.

If you get on Mauer's case for not being truly a catcher, then do the same for Murphy and CF.

If you choose to ignore more recent accurate measures in favor of older arachaic less accurate numbers, then don't just stop a few generations of typical measurements...go back to what baseball players were originally measured by.

But even with your triple crown numbers, Murphy still kicks in on average as around the 400th best. Very nice, but not quite as good as many others who are not in the Hall.

You brought up other points besides popularity, such as being the best of the mid 80's. That has nothing to do with popularity, so if you just want to talk popularity, then don't make statements such as the best of the mid 80's. Unfortunately, you used measures that don't accurately reflect the answers to your statements...as already noted(no need to expound).

Had you simply made a case based on popularity, more power to you. When you introduce the "best" player, then you need to do a better job...because you failed in your methodology.


P.S. You have been to thousands of games the last 20 years? Is it 2,000? 3,000? So you are going to over 100 games a year? 150? So during that last 20 year time span you got to see a grand total of 104 at bats by Murphy, LOL!

Yeah, a person's character is important, but unfortunately, you don't truly know his, or any other athlete's, unless you are with them on a daily basis. For all we know, he could have had three hidden wives, been a closet drinker, etc... I think we learned the lessons with guys like Kirby Puckett and Barry Sanders. So no, I don't put much stock in that, and if the voting hisotry of the baseball HOF is any indication, neither have any of the voters. It is a very small criterion of the HOF...and one that is nearly impossible to nail down.

Typically, voters have made their cases on erroneous use of measurements, and that is their biggest flaw, and is when a poor choice gets put in.

I myself have watched a very high amount of games in which Murphy played(unlike your handful), so that doesn't matter when you say stuff like that.

I also know enough and been around thoroughly and long enough to know what most accurately reflects a players' contribution on the field.

mcadams

<< <i>Mcadams,

Just be consistent in your arguments, and be logical in the measures you are choosing to use to exemplify your point. Afterall, you did use numbers yourself...you just used some of the more inaccurate ones to determine a players' value/ability. >>

I think I've been consistent. You and I have been saying the same thing for over a year now. I base my conclusions on a wide range of inputs (Popularity, Old Stats, New Stats). Your problem is that you ignore lots of data points and base your conclusions on a small subset of available "Super Sabre" data, which you deem to be the "Correct Answer". You should recognize that this is a debate and there is no fool-proof answer key that you can reference that will silence all of your critics.



<< <i> If you get on Mauer's case for not being truly a catcher, then do the same for Murphy and CF. >>

I never got on Mauer's case for not truly being a catcher. I am challenging the common thinking that he is the best hitting catcher in MLB. If Mauer hits 30 HRs a year, there is no argument. But its tough to say he's the best hitting catcher in MLB when he only hits 8 HR a year. The lack of power is WHY he is able to hit for average. The two are related.




<< <i>You brought up other points besides popularity, such as being the best of the mid 80's. That has nothing to do with popularity, so if you just want to talk popularity, then don't make statements such as the bes of the mid 80's. Unofortunately, you used measures that don't accurately reflect the answers to your statements...as already noted(no need to expound). >>

I never claimed that being popular and being the best of the mid 80's had anything to do with the other. I made both claims separately. Your comment above makes no sense whatsoever.



<< <i>Had you simply made a case based on popularity, more power to you. When you introduce the "best" player, then you need to do a better job...because you failed in your methodology. >>

LOL...You're really reaching now....Its perfectly fine that I argued he was both popular and the best player in the early/mid 80's. There is a Schmidt debate there that I am well aware of, which we have already hashed out on another thread.

Saberman

McAdams,

Really, come on now. You argued he was the best, and you used stats to support it, and then when people put forth more accurate information, you say stats don't matter, etc... Then you call them stats that are not "real". Yes, they are real, they are extremely well researched, and quite valid, much more than the measurements you used.

That is all I am telling you.


Murphy had a six year run as an elite MLB player. There are other guys in the 80's who had better peaks than Murphy. Schmidt, Brett, Murray, Yount, Ripken come to mind quickly. Pedro Guerrero was better too. I haven't looked thoroughly, but check out Murphy's WAR(Wins above replacements), and do a comprehensive comparison to his peers in the 80's...rather than just using incomplete info to try and make a case.

Check out Fred Lynn's career side by side with Murphy. He beats him in peak years, and career totals. He was also a better Centerfielder(and played it more often).

Do the same things for George Foster, or Dave Parker, or Mattingly. Afer all that is done, you will get a more accurate picture of where he sits in peak and career among his peers. Then make your case for his character.

I did a quick scan, and Murphy does have a good favorable WAR peak. Have at it, and make your case...just be fair.


I will say this....Murphy and Fred Lynn are both more deserving than Jim Rice, and at least equally as much as Kirby PUckett.

mcadams

Is that your MO? You just frustrate people by twisting their words around constantly? You misquoted what I said about Mauer, now you're pretending that I said "stats don't matter". I don't think I ever said that stats don't matter. You make good points every once in a while, but your habit of making things up about your critics is bothersome.

Saberman

Here are some key accomplishments for Murphy:

Top ten finishes only.

Best league rankings:

MURPHY:

WAR: 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 9th 10th.

Win Probability Added: 1st, 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 10th

Base Outs Wins Added: 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 10th, 10th.

Both the Win probabliity Added and Base Outs Wins added are advanced play by play measurements, and are very accurate. WAR is a comprehensive measurement.


Compare that to a guy like Jim Rice and his finishes.


RICE:

War: 2nd, 5th, 8th, 10th

Win Porbability Added: 1st, 7th, 8th

Base Outs Wins Added: 1st, 4th, 5th.


Dave Winfield:

WAR: 1st, 9th, 10th

Win Probability Added: 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 6th, 10th

Base Outs Wins Added: 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th


Puckett:

WAR: 3rd, 3rd, 10th

Win Probability Added: 6th, 7th., 10th, 10th

Base Outs Wins Added: 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th


LYNN:

WAR: 2nd, 2nd

Win Probability Added: 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th

Base Outs Wins Added: 1st, 1st, 6th, 7th







Not bad at all for Murphy!! I have to admit...his peak is a little higher than I gave him credit for. He blows Rice and Puckett out of the water. I dont' know man...this is more interesting than I thought.

Saberman

Same measurements from above for

Koufax:

WAR: 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 9th.

Win Probability Added: 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 9th

Base Outs Wins Saved: 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 7th, 9th.


I will say that Murphy was more Koufaxian than either Rice or Puckett. It is funny how Rice is usually given that tag, yet Murphy deserves it more.

THe question is, is that enough to get in the Hall, being that the rest of Murphy's career was a handful more of average seasons, and then a few 'nothing' seasons?

Koufax gets more benefit/credit being that he retired after being the best in the game for the last few reigning seasons(and retired due to a bad arm at the absolute height of his career). When Murphy ended 'early' he was no longer a viable option to be employed by a MLB team. So there is a difference between their endings.


I guess it really all depends where you want to 'draw the line'.

grote15

I'd vote for Larkin and Raines, who is one of the most underrated players of all time. His numbers rank right up there with the very best players of the 1980s, and I believe rhat eventually the voters will realize his value and come around and vote him in like they did with Blyleven.

Dale Murphy was one heckuva player for about a 3-4 year stretch. But HOF? No way. But he is a Brave and for McAdams that adds about 70% to his starting vote, LOL..

Edit to add: Let's not forget, too, that a lot of those Murphy home runs during that span in the early 80s were hit at home at a field that was nicknamed "The Launching Pad."

mcadams

Saber- Is there a definitive guidebook that I could read to better understand the numbers that Sabre fans follow? In the spirit of reconciliation, I feel that I should at least step into this century and understand the new metrics. As it stands today, its all a bit foggy. Thx.

Saberman

Below is a link from Tom Tango's research. It is a pretty straightforward explanation of Linear Weights. Don't let the name scare you off, as the concept is fairly simple, and it is rooted in the actual play by play resutls of MLB. It pretty much mirrors common sense.

1)For example, as a batter, if you were to list the possible outcomes of an at bat, and then rate them from the ones that are least helpful to scoring, to the ones that are most help to scoring, you get this:

From left to right, going from the least helpful to the most helpful...

Hitting into a triple play, GIDP, Batting Out, BB/HBP, 1B, 2B, 3B, HR.

I don't think there is a sane person on this planet that could rearrange those events differently, and still make sense. Hitting into a triple play is the worst case scenario for a batter, and hitting a home run is the best. In between the two are varying levels of events, all logically lined up.

Not only is it logical, it is well documented from the play by play data that as you go along toward the right side of the spectrum, that teams score more runs. This comes from research that includes every play by play at bat since the 1960's.



2)The next step to that spectrum is the situation each of those occur in, and that is charted in the link below.

For example, a HR with nobody on is not as valuable as a HR with the bases loaded. Yeah, it really isn't rocket science after all. Most of it is pretty much common sense, except now it is simply laid out on the ledger, including all possible base/out situations.




3)Inning and timeliness of the hit also play a factor in determining run and win expectancy, but that is sort of another topic, and deserves a separate article. First, the basic knowledge of run construction has to be understood before one can get into the 'Atlantis and Big Foot' areas of the topic.



4) For the most part, how well a batter does in each situation tends to even out over the course of his career, so often times one can just look at step one and the average values of each of those steps to get a very strong idea of how good they did. There is no question that some players have indeed added more value to their hits than others because of how they did better with men on base, and the numbers are all there for it.



5) The neat part is that there are simple measures that will get you to the very similar conclusions as the more precise ones above. For example, OB% and SLG% tell one heckuva story. Together, they form OPS. OPS+ is simply OPS, but puts it in the context of the league (i.e. hitting .300 in 1968 was more valuable towards winning than was hitting .300 in 2001).

So if you were to look at OPS+ and compare it to the Linear Weights, you get to a very similar conclusion without having to do much computation at all. Actually, with Baseball Reference, the need for computation is no longer needed for any of those. It is sort of an answer to a prayer many were looking for 25 years ago. In fact, all the play by play info available is also an answer to a prayer many were wishing they knew 30 years ago!

However, be very wary of comparing career OPS+ of players of varying careers! Those will give very misleading results, as was presented in the Eddie Murray and Jim Rice case.



6)The odd event! What typically happens is that fans bring forth the odd event to try and debunk all the above.

On this board there was a long discussion that sometimes a single may be more helpful than a HR. The example was that sometimes when down by three runs in the last inning, they proposed that a single may start a rally, wheras a HR is easier to recover from. It is all conjecture, and there may be a sliver of truth to it. But it does very little to make it more favorable to use the archaic stats, as opposed to the more valid ones (which of course is their aim to bring the odd event up).

Using the odd event and archaic measurements, instead of the more accurate ones, is akin to trying to get to the moon by going into your backyard and jumping as hard as you can on the trampoline, and then telling the guys in the rocket ships that they are crazy for using these new methods of propulsion. The trampoline and the rocket both do send you toward your destination...but one gets you 'a little' closer



Text

CEOBIDMC

I often when about folks are slaves to stats, do they constantly measure their members hoping for it to grow another inch?