Better overall First Baseman: Willie McCovey or Eddie Murray?

Giantsdude24 · March 12, 2013 12:34PM

Willie McCovey's stats:
Rookie of the year 1959
Career plagued by injuries
San Francisco Giants (1959-73, 1977-80), San Diego Padres (1974-76), Oakland A's (1976)
.270 avg, 2211 hits
One of the great power hitters of the second half of the 20th century, McCovey hit 521 homers and drove in 1,555 in his career. He was MVP in in 1969, when he hit .320 with 36 homers, one of three seasons in which he led the NL in homers. He also is the only player in history to hit two home runs in one inning twice.

Eddie Murray's stats:
Rookie of the year 1977
Baltimore Orioles (1977-88, 1996), Los Angeles Dodgers (1989-91, 1997), New York mets (1992-93), Cleveland indians (1994-96), Anaheim Angels (1997)
.287 avg, 3255 hits
A consistent force, he's one of just three players all-time to have more than 3,000 hits and 500 home runs. (Hank Aaron and Willie Mays are the others.) A switch-hitter, he drove in at least 75 runs for a record 20 consecutive seasons. He also played more games at first base than anybody in history. A three-time Gold Glove winner, he won one World Series with the Orioles (1983) and advanced to two others (1979 and 1995 with Indians).

Being a San Francisco Giants fan I am a bit biased but over his career I believe McCovey was the more feared hitter as he drew many more intentional walks, was a more prolific Homerun hitter (barring injuries).I feel Murray was the better fielder of the two, as well as a better contact hitter overall. In my opinion it is too close to call that is why I brought this fun little debate up on the boards. Maybe they are farther apart then I realize, would like to hear some input from others. Thanks folks!

JoeBanzai · March 12, 2013 4:28PM

Too close to call?

McCovey slightly better hitter, Murray slightly better fielder. I vote McCovey. I also wonder if McCovey missed games because of other good players (Cepeda) or because of injury. It has been said (by Johnny Bench) that McCovey was the most feared slugger in the league. Don't think that was ever said about Murray.

Joe

digicat · March 12, 2013 5:15PM

<< I also wonder if McCovey missed games because of other good players (Cepeda) or because of injury >>

Both of those.

PowderedH2O · March 13, 2013 12:03AM

eddie murray accumulated a lot of stats.

I find that amusing when compared to Willie McCovey, who hung on until he could barely walk to keep playing. McCovey was also a stat accumulator that was essentially worthless his last three years. He had a cumulative .233 batting average, an on base percentage of roughly .300, and could arguably have been one of the worst defensive first basemen you'll ever find during those years (not that Stretch ever was even a poor man's imitation of Keith Hernandez).

I see it this way: At his very best, McCovey was a far greater player than Murray at his very best. But, for 18 years, you could pencil Eddie Murray in for 150-160 games at first base. He was durable and reliable. You knew he was going to hit for a decent batting average, hit his 20-30 homers, give you a solid defensive performance, and do his thing. With McCovey, you had a guy that was injury prone, and was prone to some real clunkers of years. Think about this: McCovey was in the majors for 22 years compared to Murray's 21. Yet, Murray played in 438 more games, and had 3,125 more plate appearances. So, perhaps Murray did accumulate some stats in that sense, because he was durable and reliable enough to do so.

If I can take one guy for a 3 year span, I take McCovey. If I take one guy for the whole career, I take Murray.

orioles93 · March 13, 2013 12:54AM

<< If I can take one guy for a 3 year span, I take McCovey. If I take one guy for the whole career, I take Murray. >>

This.

I would much rather have the reliable player, who hits for better average and plays better defense. Plus he was a switch hitter.

Murray hit over .300 7 times in his career. McCovey hit over .300 once if you dont count his short rookie year.
Murray had over 170 hits 12 times in his career. McCovey's career high in hits is 158, and only had over 100 hits in a season 10 times. Murray had over 100 hits 20 times, double the amount of McCovey.

I know McCovey had more power and would have hit more homers without injuries, but id still rather take the guy with over 1,000 more hits and only 17 less homers. Its not like Murray didnt hit for power. He had 25 or more homers 12 times, compared to McCoveys 9 times.

MantleMarisFordBerra · March 13, 2013 3:27AM

<< Eddie Murray's stats:
A consistent force, he's one of just three players all-time to have more than 3,000 hits and 500 home runs. (Hank Aaron and Willie Mays are the others.) >>

Shouda wrote he's one of three clean players to accomplish the feat, Rafael Palmeiro also has over 3,000 hits & 500 HRs.

Great question though...I wonder how many HRs McCovey lost due to playing in windy Candlestick Park?

markj111 · March 13, 2013 4:51AM

Offensively, McCovey was clearly surperior-career OPS+ of 147, compared to 129 for Murray. Both hung around too long. Murray had 30% more PAs, which is a ton. As others have noted, Murray was a better fielder. McCovey's peak was higher. He had seven years with an OPS+ better than Murray's best (159). Mac's best was 209; he had a 182 and a 174 as well.

57loaded · March 13, 2013 8:51AM

<< 

<< Eddie Murray's stats:
A consistent force, he's one of just three players all-time to have more than 3,000 hits and 500 home runs. (Hank Aaron and Willie Mays are the others.) >>

Shouda wrote he's one of three clean players to accomplish the feat, Rafael Palmeiro also has over 3,000 hits & 500 HRs.

Great question though...I wonder how many HRs McCovey lost due to playing in windy Candlestick Park? >>

Rafael denied steroid's but did test positive in 2005 and retired. He was really harrassed late 2005 season on the road. Maybe he was clean. I don't know.

McCovey hit frozen ropes to right field. Generally wind blew left to right before the stadium was enclosed for the Niners. He could have into a 30mph wind and it wouldn't have made much difference. He was a dead pull hitter. I don't know if he was one of the first to have a defensive shift on when he batted.

TheCARDKid · March 13, 2013 11:56AM

I don't think it's close career wise. Eddie Murray by a few lengths.

-500 legitimate home runs. That's basically 600 now.

500 home runs, 3,000 hits, lifetime .287 average...that's extremely impressive. If you say those numbers, you think of somebody like gehrig, or foxx.

As great as McCovey was, only 2,200 hits. Also, you could say Murray was one of the greatest switch hitters ever. He was very reliable and productive.

JoeBanzai · March 13, 2013 3:59PM

Adding the fact that he was a switch hitter adds to Murray's value, but I'll stick to SLG% and OPS as better indicators of who was the better hitter.

Both players had over 500 home runs. I'll say they were harder to hit in McCovey's time, so I don't get your adding value to Murray's total.

I also think McCovey missed quite a few at bats in his prime, because San Francisco had too many similar ballplayers with Mays, and Cepeda along with McCovey.

To compare Murray to Gehrig or Foxx is RIDICULOUS X 10.

Joe

TheCARDKid · March 13, 2013 7:06PM

I don't think comparing Murray to Foxx or Gehrig is completely ridiculous.

-Murray never played in a huge media market like NYC for his entire career. If he had, and he had won a few world series rings, been a hero, mvp, etc...I think his name would be more towards ted williams, gehrig, dimaggio. 3,000 hits and 500 homeruns in NYC? That would have been something.

Murray is also 9th all time in rbi's. Right underneath Ty Cobb and Jimmie Foxx, above Mays and Anson. Pretty impressive company.

I think the biggest knock against Murray is he was never media friendly....and he played in an era when that was highly prized.

JoeBanzai · March 14, 2013 3:34AM

You keep bringing up the 500 home runs and 3000 hits which are impressive numbers, BUT when you compare Murray to Foxx and Gehrig are you looking at the other numbers?

Foxx dominates Murray in BA .325 to .287 in OBP .428 to .359 in SLG .609 to .476 in OPS 1.038 to .836 and in OPS+ 163 to 129. These are ALL huge differences.

Gehrig was better than Foxx in EVERY above mentioned stat. Now you are bringing up Ted Williams? Joe Dimaggio?

Murray was a very good, consistent player who played for a long time and didn't miss many games. He is 6th in games played all time.

He does not compare with Foxx or Gehrig or Williams or Dimaggio, Foxx had a drinking problem that hurt his longevity. Gehrig of course had a fatal illness cut his career short. Williams missed 5 years due to Military and Dimaggio had a shortened career as well.

Murray simply was no where near as good as those you would try to compare him to, and if you took the time to look you would agree.

Yes, had "Steady Eddie" played in New York he would have gotten more publicity.

Joe

TheCARDKid · March 14, 2013 11:22AM

I don't know if the average fan thinks in terms of OPS or OPS+ when thinking about the all time greats.

-For example, Johnny Mize and Jeff Bagwell have a higher OPS than....Ty Cobb, Hank Aaron?, Mays, Shoeless Joe Jackson,....many times higher than Honus Wagner at .8576. OPS doesn't show longevity.

A .287 average isn't .320 or .340, but pretty high vs his peers....higher than dale murphy, higher than dawson.

If you look at the legitimate 500 home runs hitters (minus guys like Bonds or AROD), .287 is higher than Schmidt, Killebrew, Reggie Jackson, Banks, McCovey or Ed Mathews.

Murray never had the individual single season dominance of Foxx, Gehrig, Williams or Dimaggio. But his accumulated career stats are awfully impressive...6th in games played, 9th in rbi's, 12th all time in hits. Doesn't that put you in elite company?

-Murray also had a relatively low number of strikeouts for a 500 homerun hitter. Lower than Schmidt, Mantle, Killebrew, or McCovey yet he played in more games. He had more control over his swing than your average power hitter.

JoeBanzai · March 14, 2013 12:15PM

I like OPS. It combines the two most important (in my mind) offensive stats, getting on base and long(er) hits.

Your last post, comparing Murray to a new set of players makes more sense to me. Guys that retired with BOTH .320+ batting averages and 500 or so home runs are MUCH harder to find than the .260-.280 guys.

I also read that Murray led the league in game winning RBI during the stretch of 1980-85, hit .399 with a SLG of .739 with the bases loaded, and starting in 1979 he batted .324 with runners in scoring position.

Great player.

Joe

Giantsdude24 · March 14, 2013 12:45PM

I checked back in to see how the discussion has been going and I must say I am pleased to see a healthy dose of extra stats and comparisons on this issue. I still am biased towards Willie McCovey and his history with injuries, but I wanted to compare the two in an open forum and hear what some other people have to say on this. Murray was an impressive hitter as well and I watched him play growing up, McCovey retired a few years before I started watching baseball as a kid. To hear my dad talk about it, he would take McCovey every day of the week and twice on Sundays, he was just that feared of a hitter and deep threat. My main goal of this comparison and analysis was to compare two players from slightly different eras that might not normally be debated about together, and get a real honest opinion on both of their strengths and weaknesses and their different styles of play. I hope to hear more chat about this, and am glad I didnt have to resort to a debate about Mays vs Mantle that has been done to death. Thanks guys.

GR · March 14, 2013 10:05PM

people chanted EDDIE EDDIE EDDIE!!!! lol, McCovey didnt have a chant, just a cove! Id go with Eddie though since my parents got engaged off one of his home runs (:

robert67 · March 17, 2013 11:04AM

I didn't get the chance to see McCovey play, but I grew up watching Eddie Murray play. He was a force.

I'm sure that McCovey is helped by the 60's players aura that does exist. I'd take Murray by a nose.

larryallen73 · March 19, 2013 2:03AM

McCovey was probably more feared in his prime.

NVbaseball · March 19, 2013 3:20AM

Murray had five to six years where he was one of the very best players in the league; perhaps the very best player for the first half of the 80s

From age 21 to age 38 he had one year where he missed 25 games, he never missed more than 10 games in any other season during those years while. Of those 18 seasons it wasn't until the last four that he wasn't one of the best first baseman in baseball

Then at age 39, he was still one of the very best DHs in the league while missing 31 games

There are very few players in history who can match that combination of high peak and durability

soundgard · March 29, 2013 4:49PM

Murray

Better overall First Baseman: Willie McCovey or Eddie Murray?

Comments