HOF 2012 Who deserves it? Murphy?
Saberman
Posts: 677
in Sports Talk
Hi everyone,
I have debated this topic often on this board, as I am sure Jim Rice fans know
. Now that it is time for HOF again, lets look closely at one candidate...Dale Murphy.
You can cut to the chase by skipping my editorial and look at the figures below the paragraphs
The HOF has it's criteria, though it seems voters have never really followed it, but instead contrive up their own criteria using their own biases...which are often filled with inaccuracies, half truths, or simple ignorance. "Fame", "Reputation" and "Character" are examples of official HOF criteira, as is "Player Record," and "Contribution to the team."
The first three, fame, reputation and character are extremely subjective and that is often where the 'mistakes' are made, especially since arguments in these areas are typically supported with statistical figures that aren't very accurate, such as RBI. RBI are good measurement, if one takes into account the number of opportunities a player is presented and compares it fairly to other competing players. Problem is, most writers don't do that. They ignore team context or ballpark, and just look at the total. That is where a mistake can happen. Then, this leads to an artificial inflation of the players reputation and fame. So now you have a player who is given a 'false' plus in TWO key components in the HOF criteria.
But if people use statistical figures to support a players reputation or "Fame", then why use inferior measurements? Most likely ignorance is the answer, or bias of the "back of the baseball card stats" because "that is what I grew up on." Funny now though that the back of the baseball cards are now using more modern and accurate measurements.
Character? Often cited, but really rarely used. Lots of dirtbags are in the Hall, and their isn't one player in the Hall as a result of primarily good character. So it isn't historically used. Probably, because it really isn't possible to measure it, or know for sure the truth of one's character...see Kirby Puckett.
Player Record and Contribution to the team. These are the heart of baseball, because this is where their actual performance and ability come into play. This is the area in the criteria that have carried the most weight historically, as it should, since it is far more objective sample of a players ability and contribution, and is easy for everyone to access because their performances are carefully counted each and every at bat...well at least NOW we know the context of each and every at bat and its impact on producing runs and winning games! In the past, everyone just guessed and assumed a players value, or their clutchness.
There has been a major study that has looked at every single at bat of each adn every player from the 1950's to now. Because of this, stats like Win Probability Added(WPA) are able to measure a players impact on the game of baseball to a microscopic level. It is very accurate. We know exactly how often a player was able to hit a three run home run while down by two runs...and how often a player only hit his home runs when the game was already over. We know this for each and every possible base/out/inning situation in baseball. We know how much each of those events gives a team a chance to win! It is the stuff we always guessed it...but now it is no longer necessary to guess at.
The Case of DALE MURPHY
Dominance and Longevity. The HOF requires only 12 years to qualify. Dale Murphy played 18. Many people promote players more who dominated their league's as opposed to the players who played long enough to compile numbers. Think of Sandy Koufax as the example of the dominator, and Harold Baines as the compiler.
Jim Rice was voted in due to a perceived dominance, while he lacked longevity. Same for Kirby Puckett. Those are the two most recent examples. Dave Winfield, while also dominant in his own right, got a big boost in longevity added to it.
________________________________________________________THE RESULTS BELOW:
Lets look at Dale Murphy's dominance in Win Probability Added(WPA), one of the most accurate measurements possible in determining what a player provided offensively.
I am going to compare Murphy to some HOFers from his era.
Dominance. This is simply how often they ranked in their top ten in their league in this measurement. Below is the best league rankings of each player, and then their career total, which is expressed in runs above average:
WPA yearly top ten rankings of HOF candidates who played at least a 'good' portion of their career pre live ball era(pre 1994), and whom are mostly measured based on their bat as opposed to their glove:
WPA:
Murphy 1st, 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 10th. Career total 30.4.
Raines 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 10th. Career total 47.6
McGwire 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 6th, 9th. Career total 53.3
McGriff 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 6th. Career total 43
Palmeiro 3rd, 5th 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th. Career total 43
Lynn 3rd, 5th, 6th, 76h. Career total 26.1
Contemporary HOFers to Murphy:
Puckett 6th, 7th, 10th, 10th. Career total 26.8
Rice 1st, 7th, 8th. Career total 25.5
Gwynn 1st, 1st, 6th, 6th, 6th. Career total 55
Molitor 2nd, 3rd, 8th, 8th. Career total 37
Murray 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th. Career total 51.4
Brett 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 6th, 8th. Career total 52.1
Schmidt 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th. Career total 55.4
Winfield 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 6th 10th. Career total 41.3
That is kind of a lot of info. Lets break it down to pure dominance and rank all those guys based on the number of 1st and 2nd place finishes; the real BLACK INK test:
DOMINANCE
Murray 5
Brett 4
Schmidt 4
McGwire 4
Murphy 3
Raines 2
Winfield 1
McGriff 1
Molitor 1
Rice 1
Lynn 0
Puckett 0
Palmeiro 0
The HOF voters simply got it wrong in their perceived dominance of some players, most notably Rice and Puckett. Murphy fared VERY well here.
CAREER TOTAL:
Schmidt 55.4
Gwynn 55
McGwire 53.3
Brett 52.1
Murray 51.4
Raines 47.6
McGriff 43
Palmeiro 43
Winfield 41
Molitor 37
Murphy 30.4
Puckett 26.8
Lynn 26.1
Rice 25.5
Based on the two criteria of Player Record and Contribution to the team, Murphy belongs when looking at their peak dominance, but is lacking in terms of career value. Notably, he beats both Rice and Puckett in both Peak and Career measurement.
In character, he would have to rank at the very top(from what we know at least), and in reputation, with two MVP's and multiple All-Star appearances he would also rank very high in reputation as well. Notably, he would beat Rice and Puckett easily in character...and would be at least tied with them in reputation.
Position: Murphy played appx half of his career innings in CF and some innings at catcher, this gives his numbers a little more merit compared to the corner guys on the list.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------FINAL RESULTS:
SO lets go blow by blow on that list vs Murphy.
Schmidt vs Murphy....Schmidt wins easily
Murray vs Murphy....Murray wins easily
Brett vs Murphy....Brett wins easily
Those are the only players that beat Murphy in both Peak and Career measurements...and are far enough ahead that there really are no other criteria that could close the gap, and not worth even debating any further.
But then it gets interesting!!
Rice vs Murphy....Murphy wins
Puckett vs Murphy...Murphy wins
Murphy clearly beats out two contemporary HOFers in Dominance, has the edge in career value, big edge in Character, and tied in reputation.
Winfield vs Murphy....Murphy beats him in the black ink 3 to1. Winfield beats in him career 41 to 30. If you take into account the CF and catcher innings, and the Character and Reputation criteria, Murphy may very well have a case in beating Winfield! Upon further scrutiny it probably sits at a TIE right now.
Molitor vs Murphy...Molitor has the career edge 37 to 30, but Murphy had a higher peak with two 1st place finishes and one 2nd, compared to Molitors one 2nd place finish. This one is close...and may very well be a tie as well! TIE for now.
Gwynn vs Murphy....Murphy edges him in dominance, Gwynn has a big lead in career total. However, Gwynn played a lot in the live ball era, and even in an old age had some of his best seasons in the live ball era(a benefit Murphy never got to experience). Still, the career value is far enough ahead, and gwynn is close enough in peak, that Gwynn's advantage of playing in the live ball era doesn't matter. Edge Gwynn.
McGriff vs Murphy....similar to the case of Winfield above. However, McGriff played more years in the live ball era where it was easier for the stars to distance themselves from the average joe. Also, taking into account position difficulty; EDGE MURPHY.
Palmeiro vs Murphy....again, similar to the winfeld and McGriff cases in terms of Peak and career measurements....however, more similar to McGriff due to position difficulty. Even without considering the roids, Murphy has the smallest of edges. Considering the roids, character, and reputation factors, CLEAR EDGE to Murphy.
McGwire vs Murphy...Mcgwire was very dominant and his career total is dominant too. This just depends on how one views how much roids helped McGwire. I think they helped a lot. As a result, Edge Murphy.
Raines vs Murphy...Raines big lead in career value, and his own good showing in peak value probably gives Raines an edge. Position puts it in Murphy's favor, as does character and reputation. Most likely a TIE.
Lynn vs. Murphy...Murphy beats him out. I though Lynn would fare better. Sorry Fred, you may still have Jim Rice beat due to position...but Murphy has you. Win Murphy.
IN A NUTSHELL;
Players who Clearly beat Murphy:
Schmidt
Murray
Brett
Players who edge Murphy:
Gwynn
Players who are most likely tied with Murphy:
Winfield
Molitor
Raines
Players whom Murphy beats:
Rice
Puckett
Palmeiro
Lynn
McGwire
McGriff
Conclusion: Murphy was much more dominant than writers give credit for, even more so considering those dominant years were done from the CF position! He was clearly more dominant than FIVE contemporary HOFers; Rice, Puckett, Winfield, Molitor, Gwynn. He was right up there in dominance with the kings of the era, Murray, Brett and Schmidt.
Murphy trounces Rice and Puckett...making their elections over Murphy a huge joke...especially considering he also trounces them in character, and equal in reputation and honors.
My thoughts on Murphy has changed over the last few years as I never really looked at it close enough. If I had one vote to give this year, I would wrestle between Murphy and Raines.
PS, I forgot Wade BOGGS 1st, 1st, 5th, 5th, 6th. Career total 37.
One final note: All baseball fans take note that Eddie Murray was not a compiler, which he is often labled as. As can be seen, he was the most dominant force with the bat in his prime among all those guys. He did more to 'creating' wins with his bat in his peak than any of those guys.
I have debated this topic often on this board, as I am sure Jim Rice fans know
. Now that it is time for HOF again, lets look closely at one candidate...Dale Murphy.You can cut to the chase by skipping my editorial and look at the figures below the paragraphs
The HOF has it's criteria, though it seems voters have never really followed it, but instead contrive up their own criteria using their own biases...which are often filled with inaccuracies, half truths, or simple ignorance. "Fame", "Reputation" and "Character" are examples of official HOF criteira, as is "Player Record," and "Contribution to the team."
The first three, fame, reputation and character are extremely subjective and that is often where the 'mistakes' are made, especially since arguments in these areas are typically supported with statistical figures that aren't very accurate, such as RBI. RBI are good measurement, if one takes into account the number of opportunities a player is presented and compares it fairly to other competing players. Problem is, most writers don't do that. They ignore team context or ballpark, and just look at the total. That is where a mistake can happen. Then, this leads to an artificial inflation of the players reputation and fame. So now you have a player who is given a 'false' plus in TWO key components in the HOF criteria.
But if people use statistical figures to support a players reputation or "Fame", then why use inferior measurements? Most likely ignorance is the answer, or bias of the "back of the baseball card stats" because "that is what I grew up on." Funny now though that the back of the baseball cards are now using more modern and accurate measurements.
Character? Often cited, but really rarely used. Lots of dirtbags are in the Hall, and their isn't one player in the Hall as a result of primarily good character. So it isn't historically used. Probably, because it really isn't possible to measure it, or know for sure the truth of one's character...see Kirby Puckett.
Player Record and Contribution to the team. These are the heart of baseball, because this is where their actual performance and ability come into play. This is the area in the criteria that have carried the most weight historically, as it should, since it is far more objective sample of a players ability and contribution, and is easy for everyone to access because their performances are carefully counted each and every at bat...well at least NOW we know the context of each and every at bat and its impact on producing runs and winning games! In the past, everyone just guessed and assumed a players value, or their clutchness.
There has been a major study that has looked at every single at bat of each adn every player from the 1950's to now. Because of this, stats like Win Probability Added(WPA) are able to measure a players impact on the game of baseball to a microscopic level. It is very accurate. We know exactly how often a player was able to hit a three run home run while down by two runs...and how often a player only hit his home runs when the game was already over. We know this for each and every possible base/out/inning situation in baseball. We know how much each of those events gives a team a chance to win! It is the stuff we always guessed it...but now it is no longer necessary to guess at.
The Case of DALE MURPHY
Dominance and Longevity. The HOF requires only 12 years to qualify. Dale Murphy played 18. Many people promote players more who dominated their league's as opposed to the players who played long enough to compile numbers. Think of Sandy Koufax as the example of the dominator, and Harold Baines as the compiler.
Jim Rice was voted in due to a perceived dominance, while he lacked longevity. Same for Kirby Puckett. Those are the two most recent examples. Dave Winfield, while also dominant in his own right, got a big boost in longevity added to it.
________________________________________________________THE RESULTS BELOW:
Lets look at Dale Murphy's dominance in Win Probability Added(WPA), one of the most accurate measurements possible in determining what a player provided offensively.
I am going to compare Murphy to some HOFers from his era.
Dominance. This is simply how often they ranked in their top ten in their league in this measurement. Below is the best league rankings of each player, and then their career total, which is expressed in runs above average:
WPA yearly top ten rankings of HOF candidates who played at least a 'good' portion of their career pre live ball era(pre 1994), and whom are mostly measured based on their bat as opposed to their glove:
WPA:
Murphy 1st, 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 10th. Career total 30.4.
Raines 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 10th. Career total 47.6
McGwire 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 6th, 9th. Career total 53.3
McGriff 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 6th. Career total 43
Palmeiro 3rd, 5th 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th. Career total 43
Lynn 3rd, 5th, 6th, 76h. Career total 26.1
Contemporary HOFers to Murphy:
Puckett 6th, 7th, 10th, 10th. Career total 26.8
Rice 1st, 7th, 8th. Career total 25.5
Gwynn 1st, 1st, 6th, 6th, 6th. Career total 55
Molitor 2nd, 3rd, 8th, 8th. Career total 37
Murray 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th. Career total 51.4
Brett 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 6th, 8th. Career total 52.1
Schmidt 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th. Career total 55.4
Winfield 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 6th 10th. Career total 41.3
That is kind of a lot of info. Lets break it down to pure dominance and rank all those guys based on the number of 1st and 2nd place finishes; the real BLACK INK test:
DOMINANCE
Murray 5
Brett 4
Schmidt 4
McGwire 4
Murphy 3
Raines 2
Winfield 1
McGriff 1
Molitor 1
Rice 1
Lynn 0
Puckett 0
Palmeiro 0
The HOF voters simply got it wrong in their perceived dominance of some players, most notably Rice and Puckett. Murphy fared VERY well here.
CAREER TOTAL:
Schmidt 55.4
Gwynn 55
McGwire 53.3
Brett 52.1
Murray 51.4
Raines 47.6
McGriff 43
Palmeiro 43
Winfield 41
Molitor 37
Murphy 30.4
Puckett 26.8
Lynn 26.1
Rice 25.5
Based on the two criteria of Player Record and Contribution to the team, Murphy belongs when looking at their peak dominance, but is lacking in terms of career value. Notably, he beats both Rice and Puckett in both Peak and Career measurement.
In character, he would have to rank at the very top(from what we know at least), and in reputation, with two MVP's and multiple All-Star appearances he would also rank very high in reputation as well. Notably, he would beat Rice and Puckett easily in character...and would be at least tied with them in reputation.
Position: Murphy played appx half of his career innings in CF and some innings at catcher, this gives his numbers a little more merit compared to the corner guys on the list.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------FINAL RESULTS:
SO lets go blow by blow on that list vs Murphy.
Schmidt vs Murphy....Schmidt wins easily
Murray vs Murphy....Murray wins easily
Brett vs Murphy....Brett wins easily
Those are the only players that beat Murphy in both Peak and Career measurements...and are far enough ahead that there really are no other criteria that could close the gap, and not worth even debating any further.
But then it gets interesting!!
Rice vs Murphy....Murphy wins
Puckett vs Murphy...Murphy wins
Murphy clearly beats out two contemporary HOFers in Dominance, has the edge in career value, big edge in Character, and tied in reputation.
Winfield vs Murphy....Murphy beats him in the black ink 3 to1. Winfield beats in him career 41 to 30. If you take into account the CF and catcher innings, and the Character and Reputation criteria, Murphy may very well have a case in beating Winfield! Upon further scrutiny it probably sits at a TIE right now.
Molitor vs Murphy...Molitor has the career edge 37 to 30, but Murphy had a higher peak with two 1st place finishes and one 2nd, compared to Molitors one 2nd place finish. This one is close...and may very well be a tie as well! TIE for now.
Gwynn vs Murphy....Murphy edges him in dominance, Gwynn has a big lead in career total. However, Gwynn played a lot in the live ball era, and even in an old age had some of his best seasons in the live ball era(a benefit Murphy never got to experience). Still, the career value is far enough ahead, and gwynn is close enough in peak, that Gwynn's advantage of playing in the live ball era doesn't matter. Edge Gwynn.
McGriff vs Murphy....similar to the case of Winfield above. However, McGriff played more years in the live ball era where it was easier for the stars to distance themselves from the average joe. Also, taking into account position difficulty; EDGE MURPHY.
Palmeiro vs Murphy....again, similar to the winfeld and McGriff cases in terms of Peak and career measurements....however, more similar to McGriff due to position difficulty. Even without considering the roids, Murphy has the smallest of edges. Considering the roids, character, and reputation factors, CLEAR EDGE to Murphy.
McGwire vs Murphy...Mcgwire was very dominant and his career total is dominant too. This just depends on how one views how much roids helped McGwire. I think they helped a lot. As a result, Edge Murphy.
Raines vs Murphy...Raines big lead in career value, and his own good showing in peak value probably gives Raines an edge. Position puts it in Murphy's favor, as does character and reputation. Most likely a TIE.
Lynn vs. Murphy...Murphy beats him out. I though Lynn would fare better. Sorry Fred, you may still have Jim Rice beat due to position...but Murphy has you. Win Murphy.
IN A NUTSHELL;
Players who Clearly beat Murphy:
Schmidt
Murray
Brett
Players who edge Murphy:
Gwynn
Players who are most likely tied with Murphy:
Winfield
Molitor
Raines
Players whom Murphy beats:
Rice
Puckett
Palmeiro
Lynn
McGwire
McGriff
Conclusion: Murphy was much more dominant than writers give credit for, even more so considering those dominant years were done from the CF position! He was clearly more dominant than FIVE contemporary HOFers; Rice, Puckett, Winfield, Molitor, Gwynn. He was right up there in dominance with the kings of the era, Murray, Brett and Schmidt.
Murphy trounces Rice and Puckett...making their elections over Murphy a huge joke...especially considering he also trounces them in character, and equal in reputation and honors.
My thoughts on Murphy has changed over the last few years as I never really looked at it close enough. If I had one vote to give this year, I would wrestle between Murphy and Raines.
PS, I forgot Wade BOGGS 1st, 1st, 5th, 5th, 6th. Career total 37.
One final note: All baseball fans take note that Eddie Murray was not a compiler, which he is often labled as. As can be seen, he was the most dominant force with the bat in his prime among all those guys. He did more to 'creating' wins with his bat in his peak than any of those guys.
Are you sure about that five minutes!?
0
Comments
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Murphy 1st, 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 10th. Career total 30.4.
Garvey 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 10th. Career total 26.9.
Batting average, hits, RBI etc...are already in there, plus everything else that counts, as each and every plate appearance is examined in base/out situation, inning, and score.
THe other HOF criteria of Character and Reputation?
Character, Edge Murphy. Garvey is probably an example of why Character isn't used, or shouldn't be, as his was once stellar. I do love the "He's not my Padre slogan" that Garvey had attached to him.
Reputation, Garvey had a good one...and the World Series teams helped. Murphy's hardware helps. Probably a tie. Garvey has the 'old school' reputation, as exmeplified in your citing of some of the archaic measurements.
Since Murphy beats him in Peak and Career...and played a tougher position to boot...Murphy still comes out ahead.
Factor in the reputation and character aspects, Murphy is ahead in those too.
as any hitter in the history of the game. The problem with Murph is that he could go into a funk and stay there for
10 to 15 games. He'd flail at a curve balls in the dirt and watch fastballs down the middle.
His play in centerfield was above average. Great range, great accurate arm (unlike his inaccurate throws as a catching prospect).
He is borderline HOF'er for me as were Dawson, Puckett and Rice, but the Hall would be a better place if he does make it in.
I enjoyed the OP's analysis.
IMHO, Murphy should be in the HOF. Great player who I really enjoyed watching through the years.
Robert
Smell Test: NO.
Good Guy Test: Yes.
In the end I just don't see it.
WPA
Dawson 4th, 9th. Career total 29.7
Dawson vs Murphy. Murphy dominates him in peak years, and edges him in Career total. Position edge to Murphy. That is another HOFer that Murphy beats out.
That brings the total to three HOfers from Murphy's era that he beats out....Rice, Puckett, and Dawson. All three have always been viewed as borderline, and/or not deserving.
Considering that statistically he is ahead of them in peak years, and similar in career totals, and he also has very high character and reputation...along with some nice hardware.
It becomes one of two things:
1)Rice, Puckett, and Dawson really shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame
2)Murphy belongs being that he is ahead of those guys....or at least it is quite puzzling to put those three in and then leave him out.
It seems that the ones posting in this thread so far are leaning toward #1. In that case, that would leave the only 'deserving' HOF hitters from that era to be:
Schmidt
Brett
Murray
Boggs
Gwynn
Then Winfield and Molitor being borderline.
The rest...Rice, Puckett, Dawson, Murphy, McGriff, Mattingly, Lynn, Dwight Evans...are they all too similar, or far enough away from the elite of that era in both peak and career, to merit not being in?
The next question is, is that enough of a representation of hitters from that era?
I have made two lists
List 1 (Christmas cards recieving list)
Saberman
Dennis07
Goodsport40
Bigred2
List 2 (Official banned from my Christmas card list) Shame on you!
LarryAllen
Justacommeman
You mentioned Fred Lynn in your piece. While Fred Lynn is never ever brought up as a Hall of Famer, I would contend that he is a more viable candidate than Murphy. Lynn's OPS+, his postseason performances, and his absolute peak years (1975 and 1979) were better than anything Murphy ever did. Lynn won the MVP and ROY in 1975. Lynn got shafted out of an MVP in 1979 in Terry Pendleton/Barry Bonds style. Lynn outhit Don Baylor in virtually every category but RBI's, plus played a brilliant centerfield while Baylor was a DH, yet Baylor got the award. And while Murphy was an excellent defensive outfielder, for some period of time Fred Lynn may have been the finest defensive centerfielder that the American League has ever seen.
Bottom line to me is that while Murphy was a great player at his peak (five seasons of OPS+ between 142-157), he wasn't that great otherwise. He also had full season OPS+ scores of 80, 101, 89, 99, 96, and 103. That's not even taking into account the partial seasons that were generally mediocre. In my Hall of Fame, if you are going to have that many mediocre seasons, you had better be a stat compiler. Murphy falls short of the big lifetime stats. He falls short of guys like Fred Lynn. And in my book, he falls short of the Hall.
<< <i>Looks like Raines does not get the consideration he deserves. I am a Braves fan from the days of the Superstation, and Murphy being in would be fine with me. >>
Raines is easily qualified for the HOF. Compare him to Gwynn (substitute Raines' extra walks for Gwynn's extra singles).
<< <i>Forgot about Dawson....
WPA
Dawson 4th, 9th. Career total 29.7
Dawson vs Murphy. Murphy dominates him in peak years, and edges him in Career total. Position edge to Murphy. That is another HOFer that Murphy beats out.
That brings the total to three HOfers from Murphy's era that he beats out....Rice, Puckett, and Dawson. All three have always been viewed as borderline, and/or not deserving.
Considering that statistically he is ahead of them in peak years, and similar in career totals, and he also has very high character and reputation...along with some nice hardware.
It becomes one of two things:
1)Rice, Puckett, and Dawson really shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame
2)Murphy belongs being that he is ahead of those guys....or at least it is quite puzzling to put those three in and then leave him out.
It seems that the ones posting in this thread so far are leaning toward #1. In that case, that would leave the only 'deserving' HOF hitters from that era to be:
Schmidt
Brett
Murray
Boggs
Gwynn
Then Winfield and Molitor being borderline.
The rest...Rice, Puckett, Dawson, Murphy, McGriff, Mattingly, Lynn, Dwight Evans...are they all too similar, or far enough away from the elite of that era in both peak and career, to merit not being in?
The next question is, is that enough of a representation of hitters from that era? >>
you might want to check out some of BR's competition in PEAK rankings because they do not show that it's as "dominating" as you make Murphy's case to be....especially in regard to Dawson. I completely understand the value of a peak in a player's career, but a peak is generally longer than a 5 year period. A peak in baseball and hockey is generally 8-10 years. Regarding Dawson, I think it's pretty well known that from '84-'86 he was playing on cement with knees devoid of cartilage so his peak is vastly diminished compared to Murphy's over Murphy's 5 year peak during the mid 80's.
Exhibit A
FG's +WPA Peak ('82-'90)
Dawson - 124.15
Murphy - 133.99
FG's +WPA Career
Dawson +234.10
Murphy +190.98
Win Probability 11 (FG) ('82-'90)
Dawson +22.70
Murphy +27.17
Win Probability 11 (FG) Career
Dawson - 38.63
Murphy - 32.88
BP's Peak ratings show
Dawson - 40.2
Murphy - 41.6
btw BP's average Peak for a HOF LFer is 42.1..so even there Murphy is below average, and his competition for the '82 MVP needs to be taken into consideration given that the best NL players from that decade had yet to debut or were just starting out their careers in Sandberg, Raines, Gwynn etc. Just saying considering the runner up to Murphy in '82 was Lonnie Smith who had 8 HRs with an .815 OPS. Pedro Guerrero and Al Oliver followed suit behind them. In '83 Dawson rode shotgun.
HoFS
Dawson - 43.7
Murphy - 34.3
position edge? Doesn't really matter considering Dawson laid a beating on Murphy in overall defensive worth. Every metric shows Murphy was a well below average defender.
FRAA
Dawson +11
Murphy -54
Total Zone
Dawson +70
Murphy -33
I get the value of the peak and all, but Murphy's wasn't long enough, and WAR is WAR, and Murphy didn't sustain enough of an elite skill set to makeup for
Dawson +62.3
Murphy +47.3
JAWS (I assume you're aware how much a player's PEAK is taken into consideration in Jaffe's metric for JAWS)
Dawson - 49.9
Murphy - 43.5
I simply have Murphy in that class as a slight step above other very good players like Parker and Baines who have similar JAWS HOF rankings at 38.4 and 38.1 respectively. Raines and Dawson over Murphy for me no doubt. Though I will also agree that Puckett does not deserve to be in the HOF.
Just because the voting members of the BBWA decide to lower the threshold for their favorites, does that mean we should continue to do so?
I say NO! The HOF is supposed to be about the All-Time Greats of the game. The ones who did things that only few, if any, other major leaguers did.
If the player is not a pitcher then it's about the combination of batting average, home runs, hits, slugging percentage, on-base percentage, RBIs, etc. or
standing out individually in one or more of these categories in a way that few others or no others ever have. Its not just about playing defense with
minimal errors and winning gold gloves. It's also about coming up with those magical defensive plays over a career that will always appear on highlight
reels. It's also about clearly being a major reason why your team won in both the regular season and beyond. It's about being one of the guys who
could individually carry a team for the better part of a decade.
Murphy (and many he was compared to) don't fit this mold. They were very, good. Maybe even very VERY good. But not All-Time Greats.
Dave
1999 BBWAA (19.3%)
2000 BBWAA (23.2%)
2001 BBWAA (18.1%)
2002 BBWAA (14.8%)
2003 BBWAA (11.7%)
2004 BBWAA ( 8.5%)
2005 BBWAA (10.5%)
2006 BBWAA (10.8%)
2007 BBWAA ( 9.2%)
2008 BBWAA (13.8%)
2009 BBWAA (11.5%)
2010 BBWAA (11.7%)
2011 BBWAA (12.6%)
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
Gives a whole new meaning to the Mendoza line.
Now everyone who was better than Mario Mendoza has a shot at the hall of fame.
Raines and Bagwell are the only players that I think are worthy this time.
Ditto for anything that writer's vote on-- the NCAA rankings, the MVP, Golden Glove, Cy Young Award, whatever. If writers are involved we should all move on and pretend it's never happened.
Watching smart people agonize for the HOF is, to me, like watching Steven Hawking complaining about the judging during a skating exhibition. It's beneath you; find another hobby.
<< <i>I think all smart people should make a personal vow to completely ignore the HOF. They shouldn't look at the voting results, they shouldn't argue about it-- in fact, they should never even visit the place. They should just pretend that the entire fraudulent enterprise doesn't exist.
Ditto for anything that writer's vote on-- the NCAA rankings, the MVP, Golden Glove, Cy Young Award, whatever. If writers are involved we should all move on and pretend it's never happened.
Watching smart people agonize for the HOF is, to me, like watching Steven Hawking complaining about the judging during a skating exhibition. It's beneath you; find another hobby. >>
My other hobbies are booze and women...but neither sit well with the wife
Your point is taken, but I wasn't looking at a ten year peak, but rather looking the elite rankings he had among the league. Rankings of 1st, 1st, 2nd, etc... That is pretty special.
As one keeps extending the peak, Dawson may eventually take him, but he didn't dominate to the degree Murphy did, nor did a lot of his contemporary HOFers, or any of his contenders...that puts Dale Murphy in a sort of special category over those guys.
In a nutshell, if this were the football HOF, Murphy would be a no brainer
Everybody will have a personal opinion on where to draw the line for the HOF...and mine has usually ended after the Schmidt, Brett, Murray, Boggs group. However, that leaves an unfair representation for that era, compared to an era like the 20's/30's.
Sorry Boo...sometimes this stuff keeps me sane, well, at least until Jaxxr enters and starts using his Kingman/Wagner methods to compare Rice to Murray.
Using Win Probability Added it is taking all context of events, most importantly including Men on Base hitting in all the various base/out states, as well as inning, score, and probability to increase chance of winning.... to get as close as possible to win contribution, more so than the other measurements. I also wanted to avoid using any metrics that put defense or position into the equation, because those muddle it a bit...as defensive measurements are not nearly as accurate, nor is the positional adjustment.
For instance, a player who hits 30 solo home runs is not giving his team as good of a chance to win as a player who hit 30 three run home runs. All of those possible figures are included in WPA, while other measurements don't account for them, giving inaccurate game accounts.
For example, in 1985 offensive WAR has Eddie Murray ranked 6th in the AL, while WPA has him first in the AL(and all of MLB), because in 1985 Murray was insane with men on base hitting and such, so the Win Probability added measures more accurately how much he actually contributed to winning games. This is also expressing Murphy's truest value to winning games.
Using a side by side comparison of Dawson and Murphy and their yearly WPA, lets see how they shake out. This expressed in Wins above average:
Murphy.....Dawson
6.3...........3.6
6.1...........3.4
4.9...........3.3
4.2...........3.2
4.2...........2.9
3.7...........2.5
3.2...........2.4
0.7...........2.2
0.6...........1.9
0.4..........1.7
0.2...........1.4
-0.1..........1.3
-0.4..........1.2
-0.7..........0.7
-0.8.........0.3
-1.1.........-0.8
-1.4.........-0.8
XX..........-0.9
xx...........-1.2
30.4.........29.7 TOTAL
Murphy had six seasons better than Dawson's best. To me, that is a pretty clear point of peak dominance. Take into account that he did those seasons from the CF position, and Dawson from RF...it makes it even more valuable(the amount of which is debatable)....but definitely more valuable to a team.
To put their numbers into context against their peers, below is how many times they ranked in the top 10 of all of MLB:
Dawson had one time in the MLB top ten when he ranked 6th
Murphy had five times in the MLB top ten...2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 7th, 9th
Puckett had 0 MLB top ten finishes
Rice had 2 top ten MLB finishes
This measures their game impact on winning baseball games...and that is a pretty important category
Yes, it's a joke Pete Rose is not in the HOF. One of the best players of the game...period!!
<< <i>
<< <i>I think all smart people should make a personal vow to completely ignore the HOF. They shouldn't look at the voting results, they shouldn't argue about it-- in fact, they should never even visit the place. They should just pretend that the entire fraudulent enterprise doesn't exist.
Ditto for anything that writer's vote on-- the NCAA rankings, the MVP, Golden Glove, Cy Young Award, whatever. If writers are involved we should all move on and pretend it's never happened.
Watching smart people agonize for the HOF is, to me, like watching Steven Hawking complaining about the judging during a skating exhibition. It's beneath you; find another hobby. >>
>>
someone's not a fan of Hunter S Thompson's philosophies. Regarding the third line, you do have 6500 posts. I'm guessing a sizable portion of them involve replying to matters that in the end, do not matter much. I'll take discussing a HOF's credentials over reading/replying to one of those - how much should I charge to ship a graded card? posts.
<< <i>Lane,
Using Win Probability Added it is taking all context of events, most importantly including Men on Base hitting in all the various base/out states, as well as inning, score, and probability to increase chance of winning.... to get as close as possible to win contribution, more so than the other measurements. I also wanted to avoid using any metrics that put defense or position into the equation, because those muddle it a bit...as defensive measurements are not nearly as accurate, nor is the positional adjustment. >>
yes but you can't just eliminate the defensive aspect. We're not talking about a DH here, and Dawson was elite in both range and arm for a large portion of his career. Murphy was well below average to freaking terrible to liability over the course of his career.
<< <i>Murphy was well below average to freaking terrible to liability over the course of his career. >>
He did win 5 Gold Gloves in a row at centerfield. I believe this statement above maybe false.
<< <i>
<< <i>Murphy was well below average to freaking terrible to liability over the course of his career. >>
He did win 5 Gold Gloves in a row at centerfield. I believe this statement above maybe false. >>
Raffy Palmiero says thanks for considering number of GGs as a valid measuring stick.
Working on the following: 1970 Baseball PSA, 1970-1976 Raw, World Series Subsets PSA, 1969 Expansion Teams PSA, Fleer World Series Sets, Texas Rangers Topps Run 1972-1989
----------------------
Successful deals to date: thedudeabides,gameusedhoop,golfcollector,tigerdean,treetop,bkritz, CapeMOGuy,WeekendHacker,jeff8877,backbidder,Salinas,milbroco,bbuckner22,VitoCo1972,ddfamf,gemint,K,fatty macs,waltersobchak,dboneesq
<< <i>Murphy was well below average to freaking terrible to liability over the course of his career. >> >>
<< <i>He did win 5 Gold Gloves in a row at centerfield. I believe this statement above maybe false. >>
<< <i>Raffy Palmiero says thanks for considering number of GGs as a valid measuring stick. >>
I'm not really using it as a measuring stick. I'm just countering the notion that Dale Murphy was either: below average, freaking terrible, or a liability when it comes to fielding. That in fact, winning five straight Gold Gloves only bolsters my arguement.
I'm leaving the Hall discussion to the ones that are not as emotionally attached as I am. I'm severely biased here.
yes but you can't just eliminate the defensive aspect. We're not talking about a DH here, and Dawson was elite in both range and arm for a large portion of his career. Murphy was well below average to freaking terrible to liability over the course of his career. >>
What facts do you have to support you allegation? According to baseball-reference his range factor was (barely) above average over the course of his career.
In regards to his character, he was always portrayed as a fantastic player and person until, if I am not mistaken, after his induction. I also feel that his career ending suddenly because of his loss of vision won him some sympathy votes. On the field he was a dynamic player who helped lead the Twins to two World Series titles and averaged 200 hits a year while winning 6 gold gloves in center field.
Personally, I think Tony Oliva was as good or better than Puckett but didn't speak English well and that hurt his marketability. Using a stat I like ( OPS+) Puckett and Murphy are equal, but Oliva is better. I know WAR is a great measure as well, but it's a bit to convoluted to my taste.
I would vote for Murphy as well.
Joe
<< <i>yes but you can't just eliminate the defensive aspect. We're not talking about a DH here, and Dawson was elite in both range and arm for a large portion of his career. Murphy was well below average to freaking terrible to liability over the course of his career. >>
What facts do you have to support you allegation? According to baseball-reference his range factor was (barely) above average over the course of his career. >>
if only that info was was posted previously.
<< <i>Nice, another "Jim Rice Sucks" thread. >>
Nobody said that.
I guess sticking out like a sore thumb says enough
Lane, I don't want to ignore the defensive aspect. I don't think either Murphy or Dawson were elite Outfielders...probably more like 'just throw them in a hat' and pick one because they are similar enough. Had one of them been truly elite, then I would factor it more.
One thing I always come back to when someone praises the greatness of a RF or LF....if they were that great of an Outfielder, then they would be playing CF.
That isn't to say Murphy was some great outfielder simply because he played CF...but he did at least man the important position and was at least close enough to league average in the process.
PS. Dawson did play more CF innings than I remember....9,000 CF innings out of his 20,000+ career ones.
<< <i>yes but the difference there is Dawson was a +77 TZ CFer. Murphy -5. Bit of a discrepancy. >>
Yes, a bit.
But without play by play defensive measurement like is being used now...there is still a lot of guess work in there.
<< <i>
<< <i>yes but the difference there is Dawson was a +77 TZ CFer. Murphy -5. Bit of a discrepancy. >>
Yes, a bit.
But without play by play defensive measurement like is being used now...there is still a lot of guess work in there. >>
nope, Total Zone is calculated via Retrosheet.
Not sure, but does it take into account the handidness of the pitching staff? The ground ball/fly ball tendencies of the pitching staff?
<< <i>Murphy will probably need to wait for the Veterans Committee. The Writers won't let him in.
1999 BBWAA (19.3%)
2000 BBWAA (23.2%)
2001 BBWAA (18.1%)
2002 BBWAA (14.8%)
2003 BBWAA (11.7%)
2004 BBWAA ( 8.5%)
2005 BBWAA (10.5%)
2006 BBWAA (10.8%)
2007 BBWAA ( 9.2%)
2008 BBWAA (13.8%)
2009 BBWAA (11.5%)
2010 BBWAA (11.7%)
2011 BBWAA (12.6%) >>
I find it hard to believe he's not getting more support. And I thought Donnie Baseball was having it rough (to the point where I've now all but given up hope of my boyhood idol getting in the HOF) as far as the Writers votes were concerned (I think Mattingly literally is one year short; if he had played one more year or if it weren't for the strike he'd have his World Series title and gotten in no later than second or third ballot for sure).
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
1B Hernandez
2B Frank White a hair above Maz
3B B.Robinson
SS Belanger
LF Yaz
CF Blair
RF Clemente
Ron
<< <i>it accounts for everything except double plays because that's considered a separate skill. Obviously that wouldn't matter much in the case of an OFer anyway. I know it accounts for Park Factors as well because Red Sox LFers always take a hit. It would take a spreadsheet to explain how everything works, but in simple terms I know the Retrosheet data they use is the same that is sent to Elias. And the data from 1980-present is supposed to be very accurate. They are constantly adjusting research for pre-1980 sheets however. Supposedly 69-70 have significant holes. Also remember, for stats like TZ or UZR aren't just a range factor, it's kind of an all inclusive metric. TZ splits the field into 64 different zones. You figure out the average number of balls in play in each zone and then the rate at which plays made are recorded in each zone. This will give you a baseline average for the position. You do this on an individual basis and graded against what the average fielder would do. As with any defensive metric it's always best to use at least 3 years of data. You can always find fault with any defensive metric if you want to but if you look at the leaders at their respective positions it's hard to argue the results.
1B Hernandez
2B Frank White a hair above Maz
3B B.Robinson
SS Belanger
LF Yaz
CF Blair
RF Clemente >>
Interesting. I wouldn't have thought White or Yaz would rank so high. Any chance Yaz's numbers get skewed by the relatively small amount of territory he had to cover at Fenway?
Tabe
<< <i>
<< <i>it accounts for everything except double plays because that's considered a separate skill. Obviously that wouldn't matter much in the case of an OFer anyway. I know it accounts for Park Factors as well because Red Sox LFers always take a hit. It would take a spreadsheet to explain how everything works, but in simple terms I know the Retrosheet data they use is the same that is sent to Elias. And the data from 1980-present is supposed to be very accurate. They are constantly adjusting research for pre-1980 sheets however. Supposedly 69-70 have significant holes. Also remember, for stats like TZ or UZR aren't just a range factor, it's kind of an all inclusive metric. TZ splits the field into 64 different zones. You figure out the average number of balls in play in each zone and then the rate at which plays made are recorded in each zone. This will give you a baseline average for the position. You do this on an individual basis and graded against what the average fielder would do. As with any defensive metric it's always best to use at least 3 years of data. You can always find fault with any defensive metric if you want to but if you look at the leaders at their respective positions it's hard to argue the results.
1B Hernandez
2B Frank White a hair above Maz
3B B.Robinson
SS Belanger
LF Yaz
CF Blair
RF Clemente >>
Interesting. I wouldn't have thought White or Yaz would rank so high. Any chance Yaz's numbers get skewed by the relatively small amount of territory he had to cover at Fenway?
Tabe >>
park factors are taken into account. Yaz actually got dinged (as do all Red Sox LFers) quite a bit especially in the readjustments made last year, but still came out on top of Jose Cruz who was #2. Frank White really shouldn't be much of a surprise.
I looked into it more...it looks like it is pretty good. It will always be impossible to get it to the level of accuracies as hitting is due to not being able to judge trajectory and velocity of the balls hit into each sector. For example, a line drive traveling 100 MPH past the outfielder is viewed the same as a line drive traveling 75 miles per hour past the outfielder. Add factoring trajectory into that mix, then it because difficult.
If one guy is getting more of the 100MPH hits into the zone, and the other guy more of the 75MPH, then they aren't being measured fairly, because obviously the 75MPH will be easier to catch and get credit for.
One would think that those would even out over time for players, but they may not either. There are few enough of the difficult plays, that it really may not even out. There could also be other factors that will not allow them to even out as well...such as the pitching staff.
However, the method is far better than relying on a fans' memory.
<< <i>park factors are taken into account. Yaz actually got dinged (as do all Red Sox LFers) quite a bit especially in the readjustments made last year, but still came out on top of Jose Cruz who was #2. Frank White really shouldn't be much of a surprise. >>
I remember Frank being great - he must have been, to beat out Lou Whitaker year after year for Gold Gloves - but I don't remember anybody talking about him at the time as an all-time great.
Ditto for Jose Cruz.
Tabe