steady Eddie Murray
craig44
Posts: 11,659 ✭✭✭✭✭
I was looking at Reddit and saw some interesting statistics on Mr. Murray. I copied/pasted because there was so much. Talk about consistency. I have a feeling that if he had one or two big seasons instead of most of his seasons looking mostly the same, people would look at his career differently. Here you go:
In 1990, he led the Majors with a .330 average but was denied the league crown because Willie McGee was traded to Oakland August 29, preserving his .335 NL average.
In 1996 Murray broke a 9.5-year drought as the newest member of the 500 Home Run Club, the longest gap since Ted Williams became the 4th member in 1960, then was quickly overshadowed by 5 more players in the next 9 seasons.
Murray’s only time leading the league in homers was his second-shortest season (1981). His career-high, 33, is the lowest for a 500 HR player by 9. The next most HR without hitting 34 is over 100 away (399, Kaline).
He reached 3,255 hits without ever being top 5. 560 doubles without being top 5. 11th in career RBI, even now, with only 2 seasons in the top 3.
He played more game at first base than anyone (2,413), but that record is never touted. Murray is one of only 7 to play more games than his more popular teammate Cal Ripken, no fanfare there either.
Murray is still the all-time leader in sacrifice flies (128) but was never the league leader. (For added perspective, Pujols is the only active player to reach 90.) He’s also the career leader in bases loaded RBI (299), even more obscure.
He is one of only six players to finish in the top five in MVP voting 5 seasons in a row; the other 5 combined for 19 MVP awards. Murray never won.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Comments
So he's the true definition of a compiler. Similar to Yaz although Yaz had the 1967 season as standout. At least Eddie and Yaz compiled some all-time numbers, not so for Baines who played longer and did very little in comparison.
In 1990, he led the Majors with a .330 average but was denied the league crown because Willie McGee was traded to Oakland August 29, preserving his .335 NL average. {his overall avg for the season was .324}
A true anomaly nonetheless it's 100% by the book.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
He did lead the league three times in Win Probability Added(plus two second place finishes) and once in Run Expectancy(plus two second place finishes)...and that is what encapsulated Murray's impact on his teams' that everyone saw unfold those years.
Not many people have led the league three times in WPA.
If you look at 1984 he did have an eye popping season being that he led the league in WPA and Run Expectancy....and he did so while getting pitched around in his lineup. He led the league in IBB and BB and that reduced his chance to add more crooked numbers to those figures above....and of course to his counting figures too.
In 1985 Murray was first in WPA and fourth in Run Expectancy. He didn't have enough guys on base to raise those totals even more(or he got pitched around when he did).
For example, in 1985 Murray only had 148 at bats with RISP. He went .370/.451/..717....1.168 OPS with RISP. He managed 124 RBI with limited opportunities and with slow footed baserunners ahead of him. So while Mattingly got all the press with 145 RBI(via Rickey Henderson up front and protection behind via Winfield), Murray's performance was lost.
A good simple measure to Murray's importance to his team and game is that from 1982-1985 Cal Ripken did not receive a single intentional walk when he was batting in front of Murray(which was basically every game except for a few dozen in 1982 and a handful of games Murray didn't play in those years).
When he went to LA in 1989 he really got pitched around. They had nobody behind him. That year hurt his percentages. He rebounded big in 1990(while still getting pitched around but not as much).
Same in 1991. He also had limited base runners ahead of him in 1991 with only 155 at bat with RISP. So no protection in front or back. You are starting to hear now 'protection from the front'.
1992 might have even been worse. Only 141 at bats with RISP.
1993
For comparison, Joe Carer from 1989 to 1992 had 179,190, 183,179 at bats with RISP
So Murray's drop from 1986-1988 with Baltimore, and drop after he left Baltimore coincided with both a slight skill decline and a large lineup decline. Had he been in better lineups like other players in MLB history, then his skill declined would have been masked with more RBI via more opportunities and (more HR and hits too due to not getting pitched around as much).
His sabermetric Run expectancy numbers would have increase too because the more of those opportunities you get the better those numbers are(if you are above league averaged hitter in those spots).
Eddie Murray signed and played in Cleveland for 2-1/2 seasons and was a part of the reason the team went to the World Series in 1995 after a drought that last 40 years. He was a Veteran among a lot of young players and provided a steadying affect on the bench and in the clubhouse. An interesting stat is that Murray and Mike Hargrove played against each other in the AL for 9 seasons and Grover was manager for the Tribe while Murray was there. I can only imagine that they worked together.
I always assumed Eddie Murray had a lock on the HOF but what do I know??
The two players were polar opposites,
Yaz hit over 40 HR 3 times and averaged 16 per year in his other years. Wildly INconsistent as a hitter.
@JoeBanzai that is what i was thinking in my OP. had Murray posted the exact same career line, but been inconsistent like Yaz and had a handful of fantastic seasons sprinkled in with a bunch of much lesser years would we think more highly of Murray?
I think most people would. Production would have been exactly the same, but the way he got there different.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
>
>
>
Offensively, I prefer Murray's consistency over Yaz's higher peak. I like a guy who you can count on year in and year out.
Defensively (something a lot of people also ignore) Yaz was much more valuable.
This is the biggest unanswerable question in the "who was better" world. I guess I shouldn't say "unanswerable" because everyone has an answer and loves to share it, but my point is that there can be two equally valid answers to the same question. When you hear "better' do you think of how good a player was in his best season, his best 3-5 seasons, over his entire career on average, or some combination of these (or something else entirely)? There is no single correct way to determine which player was "better".
Was Sandy Koufax better than Bert Blyleven? If you say yes, as I assume most all of you do, then you are placing tremendous weight on each pitcher's best 3-5 seasons, and next to no weight on length of career or what they did in years 6-12. If you think Koufax was clearly better than Blyleven, then I assume you also think Yaz was clearly better than Murray. And you're not wrong; but neither are the people who disagree with you.
@dallasactuary
it is true, the question is really only answerable according to personal preference. some like the short group of dominating seasons. Some like a long career of good/great play.
Then there are the unicorn players who have both like Mays or Ruth.
for the bulk of HOF players, I prefer a long career with mostly good/great seasons over the Koufax "type" I can understand those who see otherwise though. I have tried to think like a GM when looking at these type of questions. If I had the choice to draft two players, say Dick Allen and Eddie Murray, I would go with Murray. Yes, Allen was a force, but only for 5 or 6 seasons. Murray would give me 3 times as many seasons of good/great play.
I always figured that if you extrapolate down short periods of dominance, then Kerry Wood would be the best pitcher of all time. Because he pretty much was for one game in the spring of 1998 when he was a dominant as any pitcher I have ever seen.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Murray, one of only 7 MLB players to have achieved both 3,000 career hits and 500 career home runs. Amazing accomplishment. Best Orioles player in history. Very underrated player imo.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ohio State Buckeyes - National Champions
Brett is similar to that.
From 1974 to 1979 Brett averaged 12 HR and 77 RBI per year
Then had a huge 1980
From 1981 to 1984 Brett averaged 16 HR and 72 RBI per year.
Then had a huge 1985
From 1986-1993 Brett averaged 16 HR and 77 RBI per year.
Of course it isn't just about HR and RBI and when you look at more important measurements you see Murray isn't a compiler by any stretch, unless you count compiling six MVP worthy years as 'compiling' or account being the best hitter in MLB from 1982-1985 as compiling.
I never thought of Brett as a home run hitter. more of a sharp line drive hitter who hit loads of doubles and lots of triples.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Hank Aaron and Joe DiMaggio were remarkably consistent from year to year, too. If I understand correctly, that makes them "compilers".
My wish for the forum is that the word "compiler" never be used again, nor any other word that has no actual meaning.
I agree...I only bring it up because just looking at HR and RBI doesn't give an accurate picture.
Exactly. Murray compiled six MVP caliber years...so I guess he was a compiler in that sense. Also compiled three league leading Win Probability seasons.
People want to put Don Mattingly in the HOF based purely on. his peak 1984-1987 seasons where he compiled a 155 OPS+ with 177 runs above average in Run Expectancy.
Murray from 1982-1985 also had a 155 OPS+ with 211 Runs above average in Run Expectancy in his peak and yet he is viewed as a compiler?
Like I said above in the first post, Murray's best seasons don't look as good on the surface because first, most people don't know what to look at, and second he had limited base runners to drive in those seasons(compared to some other middle of the order hitters in the league) and he also got pitched around those years. That hid how good he was those years...and he indeed was the best hitter in MLB from 1982-1985...not just the AL, but MLB.
I don't think anyone fits the definition of a compiler anyway. That player does not exists. The true example would be a guy who played 20 years and got 150 hits every season(and did nothing else as a hitter) and he 'compiled' 3,000 hits...but they would be an empty 3,000 hits.
Al Kaline was another guy super consistent.
How about steady Harmon Killebrew?
From 1959-1970, when Harmon had at least 500 at bats, he never hit less than 39 HR (with a high of 49 twice) and drove in at least 96 Runs.
In 1971 his home runs dropped to 28, but he drove in 119 runs.
those are pretty crazy numbers for the killer. very consistent!
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.