Jim Rice, Murphy and the Hawk
Posted: December 17th, 2007 | Filed under: Baseball | 41 Comments »
Fifth in the BJIP Series — Bill James Inspired Posts
(It’s been a little while since we’ve had a nice rambling, no idea where it’s going post. So here you go. This is the long, long, long post I promised. Eventually it will get into Jim Rice, Dale Murphy and Andre Dawson. We start, though, with an homage of sorts to Terry Cashman)
One played the game quite purely
Another could be surly
The third guy blew his knees out on the turf
When Luke and Laura got married
And Elvis Presley got buried
And kids were learning compassion from their Papa Smurf
We’re talkin’ baseball
Tanana, Lemongello
Talkin’ baseball
The Bird barely said hello
Rice didn’t always like to talk
While Dawson at the end could barely walk.
Hall of Famers?
Jim Rice, Murphy and the Hawk
You know, I coulda been Cole Porter. Or Cole Hamels. Cole somebody.
A little while ago I threw out the question: What is a Hall of Famer? Tony La Russa answered the question this week in an interesting interview with my friend Bernie Miklasz across the state. The talk was about steroids, of course, and La Russa was discussing his time as manager of Tony Montana/Jose Canseco, and between his usual nonsense, he offered what I considered some very solid advice for you young managers out there: “You can’t hire private detectives to follow players around. You’d lose all trust in the clubhouse.â€
So there you go, kids — no private detectives. The players might not trust you after catching Sam Spade taking pictures through the hotel window. Now, if you want to publicly rip your third baseman, go ahead. That’s different.
ANYWAY, here’s what La Russa said about the Hall of Fame: “I want to make a point, and I’m not being flippant. But I have no desire to be in the Hall of Fame. I mean no disrespect to the Hall. But it should be for players and really special personalities.â€
Now, Bernie wisely and fairly pointed out that La Russa probably will not turn down the induction if the Hall of Fame comes a callin’. But the point is again that we all have our own Hall of Fame standards, and this is La Russa’s: Players and special personalities. You can take this a couple of different ways. He might mean great players (Mays, Mantle, Koufax, Seaver) AND special personalities (Harry Caray, Max Patkin, Buck O’Neil, Casey Stengel). You know, separate categories.
Or he may mean players who ALSO had special personalities, so, like, Babe Ruth and Bill Lee and maybe Leon Wagner would be first class Hall of Famers. Andy Van Slyke? I guess it all depends how you define the “special†in “special personality.†Because I think we all can agree that “special†has become a whole lot less special in modern times. I mean, look, Dr. Phil was a “special guest star†on Oprah. There’s nothing special about that guy. The “very special†episodes on NBC usually mean that someone dies or leaves the show. Not special. And I always thought the “special sauce†in my “two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun†was inappropriately named. It was Thousand Island Dressing, for crying out loud. Big whoop. Special? That stuff was in in your refrigerator. You could carry around plastic packets of the stuff and have it whenever you wanted. It’s ketchup and mayo mixed together. Special sauce, please.
GRUMPY FAST FOOD INTERLUDE: OK, have you seen these reality-based commercials that Burger King is doing where they take the Whopper out of their restaurants and film people’s stunned reactions? I’m not going to lie to you, these really bother me. I admit, this is at least in part because I consider Burger King a 20-miler — meaning I’d only go there if there isn’t another fast-food restaurant within 20 miles. But more, this bothers me as a TV commercial enthusiast because it’s so freaking pointless. Yeah, we get it. People who go into Burger King will probably expect to have the opportunity to buy Whoppers. This has nothing to do with quality. Whoppers may be (and are) horrendous — but they’re ALL YOU’VE GOT.
I once went into a breakfast place in Jacksonville, and I ordered eggs and orange juice and the waitress said, “Oh, sorry, we’re out of orange juice.†Yeah. Out of orange juice. I want you to think about this for a moment.
1. This was a BREAKFAST PLACE — one of those places that closes down at 11:30. It only served breakfast.
2. This breakfast place was in Florida. You know. FLORIDA? Sunshine State?
3. They were out of orange juice.
Was I upset? Sure. They could have filmed me saying to the waitress, “You’re joking, right? You’re at a breakfast place in Florida — I was expecting to have Anita Bryant herself come out here to personally serve me orange juice and lecture me about whatever whacked out thing she’s into now, evils of homosexuality, saving children, whatever. No orange juice? This is a gag, right?â€
Of course, I didn’t say any of that or anything else. I never do. I just THOUGHT that. But had I said that, I don’t see how that would have been an endorsement for their orange juice. I think Pizza Hut pizza is ghastly bad. But if I was in the emergency situation of having to order something from Pizza Hut, and I stopped in, and they said, “no, we don’t have pizza today,†well, yeah, I would be mad too. Doesn’t make the pizza or the Whopper any less crappy.
OK, I feel a little better now.
Where was I? Oh yeah, La Russa’s thoughts on the Hall of Fame. His idea is that the Hall should be for players and special personalities. Others think it should only be for the very select — Willie Mays, Babe Ruth, Walter Johnson and that ilk. Others think it should be more or less what it is now, minus or plus a few players. Others think it should be even MORE inclusive. Get Ted Simmons in there.
It seems that about the only thing we can all agree on is that no matter how big a Hall of Fame you imagine, Bowie Kuhn does not belong in it. How about that vote, eh? Bowie Kuhn*. Apparently Arnold Rothstein wasn’t up for the vote.
*Seriously? Bowie Kuhn? The guy who tried to put Satchel Paige into a separate wing of the Hall of Fame? The guy who didn’t even show up when Hank Aaron broke the home run record? The guy who wore short sleeve shirts during the World Series to prove it wasn’t cold? The guy who, according to Steinbrenner, told the Yankees NOT to go to Thurman Munson’s funeral because they might miss the next game? This guy?
More than anything, Kuhn banged heads with union head Marvin Miller for more than a decade and never won once, not even a single time, not even in a game of Parcheesi. I mean, you figure that if they ever played “Paper, Scissor, Stones,†Kuhn was the kind of strategic genius who would ALWAYS be paper. Then the Hall of Fame vote comes around, and it turns out they leave off the singular Miller, who utterly changed the game and helped players earn real rights. But they put in Wile E. Coyote. Amazing.
So, yeah, we keep getting knocked off track. Point is, the Hall of Fame is whatever you want it to be.
Well, there are three guys on this year’s ballot — three outfielders — who have probably given me more trouble than anyone else in my few years as a Hall of Fame voter. They are, as you know based on the early song: Rice, Murphy, Dawson.
So, what the heck, we’re going to take a closer look at all three. You need to know this stuff if you’re going to be a Pozcars voter (registration, incidentally, is closed … I have absolutely no idea how I’m going to go through the ridiculous number of emails I already have). First, I’ll give you a quick rundown of each player. Then, we’re going to try and have a little fun with Win Shares. Here we go:
* * *
JIm Rice
Basic stat line: .298/.352/.502, 2,452 hits, 382 homers, 1,249 runs, 1,451 RBIs, 128 OPS+
Neutralized stats: .298/.352/.501, 2,531 hits, 391 homers, 1,268 runs, 1476 RBIs.
Among Hall of Fame Left Fielders: His OPS+ is better than Heinie Manush and Lou Brock, tied with Goose Goslin … Has more career homers (382) than all but Ted Williams, Stargell, Yaz and Billy Williams. Ahead of eight other guys … His on-base percentage, however, is behind everyone except Brock.
Resume fillers: Eight-time All-Star … Won an MVP award in 1978, one of the most statistically dominant seasons of his generation (.315/.370/.600, 46, 139) … Was generally downgraded defensively while he played but there’s evidence he was a better fielder than ever given credit for … Led the league in homers three times and RBIs twice … Finished Top 5 in MVP voting five times. … Had 200+ hits and 39+ homers three years in a row, a record, if people kept such records … And as was pointed out in the comment second, Rice once saved a child’s life after he (the child) was hit with a line drive. Rice rushed into the crowd and carried the boy to the field and a doctor and safety. Rice generally had a reputation for being unpleasant and tough to deal with, not only with the media but fans and teammates. But you’ve got to think saving a young man’s life more than makes up for that. I should try to contact that boy for a blog post/column.
Top comp: Orlando Cepeda (Hall of Famer).
Quick Case for Rice: He was among the most fearsome hitters in baseball in a low-scoring time. … Over a 12-year period — 1975-1986 — Rice led the American League in many categories including homers, slugging, runs, RBIs and, interestingly enough, outfield assists. … Rice is one of those players who truly did tower over the game. When you were watching Jim Rice, you just felt like you were watching a future Hall of Famer. He was fearsome. Numerous players of his time believe he should be in the Hall.
Quick Case Against Rice: Rice did not hit any of the big automatic-entry career numbers — he didn’t get even 400 homers or 2,500 hits and he fell just short of a career .300 average. … His numbers were clearly inflated by Fenway Park. While this is just one part of the story, it is a part. He hit .277/.330/.459 on the road, with 40-plus fewer homers, 100-plus fewer runs, 150-plus fewer RBIs. … He did lead the league in hitting into double plays four years in a row, and while much of this was circumstance, he still did lead the league into hitting in double plays four years in a row. … He was more or less done at 34, which is why his career numbers put him on the Hall of Fame borderline.
* * *
Andre Dawson
Basic stat line: .279/.323/.482, 2,774 hits, 438 homers, 1,373 runs, 1,591 RBIs, 119 OPS+
Neutralized stats: .288/.333/.498, 3,004 hits, 477 homers, 1,506 runs, 1,728 RBIs
Among Hall of Fame Center/Right Fielders: His OPS+ is only better than five right fielders/center fielders, and would place him 25th overall. … He would place 13th among them in hits, right about the mid-point, but only six, Hall of Famers (Aaron, Mays, Reggie, Mickey, Ott and Winfield) have more homers than Dawson. .. His on-base percentage would place him dead last among all Hall of Fame outfielders, not just center and right fielders. It is 20 points lower than Lou Brock, who is currently last among outfielders.
Resume fillers: Eight-time All-Star … Eight-time Gold Glove winner … Won the MVP award in 1987, a controversial choice (not here — we just hated it) but he did bang 49 homers and drive in 137 RBIs that year. … As you can see by his neutralized stats, he played in a very-low run scoring environment. In a neutral, 750-run environment, he’s a drop-dead, no doubt Hall of Famer with more than 3,000 hits, 477 homers and, of course, those eight Gold Gloves. … Considered one of the classiest players in the game. Tim Raines idolized him, as did many other players … Had speed and stole 314 bases in his career (was caught 109 times) … Led league in total bases twice and power/speed numbers three times.
Top comp: Billy Williams (Hall of Famer).
Quick case for Dawson: Unlike either of the other two candidates, his career numbers do have some Hall of Fame bite — he has 400 homers and more than 2,700 hits. That combo has usually been good enough to gain induction. … He was a well-rounded player who stole bases and played good defense in center field and had a fabulous arm. … Ryne Sandberg called him the hardest working player he ever saw. … Look again at those neutralized stats … You can always come up with goofy stats to prove your case, but only three players in baseball history have hit more than 400 homers and stolen more than 300 bases. Those three are Barry Bonds, Willie Mays and Andre Dawson.
Quick case against Dawson: That on-base percentage is unseemly. It’s hard to overlook. It is, according to B-R, nine points lower than the league average over his career. Considering how important OBP is, that is really a problem. For those who like more mainstream numbers, well, the league average over that time period was .265. Could you vote in a .256 lifetime hitter into the Hall of Fame? … Dawson tacked on some of those numbers — 39 of his homers, 360-plus hits, more than 100 of his RBIs — when he was older, a part-time and below average player. He still could not quite achieve the big, automatic entry numbers of 3,000 hits and 500 homers. … Yeah, mostly the problem is that OBP.
* * *
Dale Murphy
Basic stat line: .265/.346/.469, 2111 hits, 398 homers, 1,197 runs, 1,266 RBIs, 121 OPS+
Neutralized stats: .269/.350/.474, 2,209 hits, 413 homers, 1,257 runs, 1,333 RBIs.
Among Hall of Fame center fielders: His OPS+ is better than three players (Richie Ashburn, Max Carey and Lloyd Waner) … He had more hits than three players, which would place him 12th overall (just behind Duke Snider), but home runs, he trails only Willie, Mickey and the Duke. … His on-base percentage (and batting average) would place him dead last among center fielders.
Resume Fillers: Seven-time All Star … Five-time Gold Glove winner … Two-time MVP, back-to-back years, 1982-83. Had almost identical seasons, .281, 36, 109 with 113 runs scored, 23 steals and a Gold Glove the first year, .302, 36, 121 with 131 runs scored, 30 steals and a Gold Glove the second time. Then, the next two years again had very similar numbers (without quite as many steals) and placed Top 10 in the MVP voting. … Winner of the Lou Gehrig Award and the Roberto Clemente. Was viewed as one of the great role models in sports during his prime. … Led the league in homers twice, slugging twice, runs created three times.
Top comp: Joe Carter (not in the Hall of Fame). Duke Snider is second comp.
Quick case for Murphy: Case builds on his prime. He and Roger Maris are, so far, the only only eligible players with two MVP awards who are not in the Hall of Fame (I just saw this on Wikipedia, I haven’t checked this. It doesn’t sound right, but as they say on The Office, “Wikipedia is the greatest thing ever. Anyone can post whatever they want, so you know you’re getting the best information). .. Really was a great player in his best years. From 1982-1987, probably was called the best player in baseball more than anyone else. … Fair or not, the Hall of Fame specifically says a player’s character should be taken into consideration. Dale Murphy probably inspired as many kids to play baseball as anyone in his time. And he may have inspired more young baseball players in the South than anyone before or since. That’s a pure guess, but I did live in Georgia for a few years, and I remember that Murphy was a God there.
Quick case against Murphy: His career numbers do not stand up to the best. He stuck around to get 400 home runs, but could not quite get there. His .265 batting average is low, his on-base percentage, as mentioned, does not stack up (though it’s better than Dawson’s). The problem is that Murphy, like a lot of outfielders (I need to do a post on this), hit age 32 and completely fell out of the picture. He had perhaps his best offensive season at 31 (.295/.417/.580, 44, 105, 115 runs, 16 steals, 157 OPS+) and was an average-to-poor offensive player from the next year on. If he had had one more upturn, like Rice, his case would be more compelling.
* * *
OK, so now I’m going to babble a little bit about Win Shares. You are more than welcome to stop now — this final section is more like my Hall of Fame workbook. I love using Win Shares, not just because they were invented by my friend Bill, but because they simple and to the point and I can use them to really clarify some thoughts in my mind. I don’t know how compelling or interesting any of this is, but I’ll include it here anyway.
What I’m doing here is breaking down the Win Shares for our three outfielders and adding three Hall of Famers for comparison’s sake. The Hall of Famers are Duke Snider, Dave Winfield and Joe DiMaggio. I chose those three to represent three different sorts of Hall of Famers: Snider is the borderline Hall of Famer who had a great peak, Winfield is the guy who lasted a long time (and really put up some big career numbers because he was good after 35) and DiMaggio because he was brilliant over a relatively short career (with three years taken away by World War II)
Anyway, the point here is not to make any conclusive arguments but to throw out some stuff that might be fun to think about:
Career Win Shares (rankings are as of 2006):
– Dave Winfield, 415 (38th all-time — between Molitor and Clemens)
– Joe DiMaggio, 387 (60th all-time — between Seaver and Bagwell)
– Duke Snider, 352, (95th all-time — between Sherry Magee and Max Carey)
– Andre Dawson, 340 (108th all-time — between Fred McGriff and Jimmy Sheckard)
– Dale Murphy, 294 (194th all-time — between Shoeless Joe and Mark Grace)
– Jim Rice, 282 (228th all-time — between Sal Bando and Boog Powell)
If you want to look at only career Win Shares, all three of our guys probably fall short. Snider was, as mentioned, a somewhat borderline candidate — it took him 11 years to get in (and he was on only 17% of the ballots his first time around). This was in part because of the troubles he had, but also because his basic counting numbers are only so-so (his No. 1 comp is Ellis Burks).
Anyway, all three of our outfielders fall below Snider. Dawson comes the closest — maybe you could make his case because of the extra things he brought (the Gold Gloves, the stolen bases, the respect he garnered).
But we’ve already looked at career stuff. Let’s try to stand on the desk (and say “O Captain, My Captain):
Best Single Season by Win Shares
– Joe DiMaggio (1941): 41 win shares
– Duke Snider (1954): 39 win shares
– Jim Rice (1978): 36 win shares
– Dave Winfield (1979): 33 win shares
– Dale Murphy (1984): 33 win shares
– Andre Dawson (1980): 29 win shares
Well, here’s a little bit different look. Now, we’re looking at which player had the very best season. Of course, there’s DiMaggio on top in his 56-game hitting streak year. Snider’s year (.341/.423/.647, 171 OPS+) helped power the Boys of Summer Dodgers — and as you will see, he had three more years just like it.
And here’s Rice’s terrific 1978 season — it certainly makes his case more interesting. Many people are troubled by the longevity Hall of Famers … usually represented by Don Sutton. These are the players who put up Hall of Fame numbers by sticking around forever. This is the knock on Bert Blyleven (though I don’t think that’s at all fair — Blyleven had an excellent prime). So, we’re going to try and break down these guys best years to see who had the best prime. For one year, Rice did.
Winfield and Murphy also had very good seasons — Bill tends to define 30 win shares as an MVP-type season. Dawson never had a 30 Win Shares season which hurts him. To be fair, Dawson was having his best season in 1981 and it was interrupted by the strike ( he had 25 win shares, 157 OPS+ in 103 games).
Best Three Seasons by Win Shares
– Joe DiMaggio (1939, 1941, 1948): 114 total
– Duke Snider (1953, 1954, 1955): 111 total
– Dale Murphy (1982, 1983, 1984): 97 total
– Dave Winfield (1978, 1978,1988): 92 total
– Jim Rice (1978, 1979, 1986): 92 total
– Andre Dawson (1980, 1982, 1983): 83 total
OK, we’re expanding a little bit. Top three seasons. Again, DiMaggio is on top, but you can see how close Snider was to him. Was Duke Snider at his best as good as DiMaggio at his best? I’ll have to ask Bill what he thinks and get back to you.
Meanwhile, Murphy is now ahead of the other two outfielders — ahead of Winfield too. Now, let’s take a look at the three best consecutive years to measure the players in their prime.
Best Consecutive Three Seasons by Win Shares
– Duke Snider (1953-55): 114 total
– Joe DiMaggio (1939-41): 106 total
– Dale Murphy (1982-84): 97 total
– Jim Rice (1977-79): 90 total
– Dave Winfield (1977-79): 85 total
– Andre Dawson (1980-82): 80 total
As you can see, Murphy’s three-year peak is better than the others by quite a bit. This would follow what happens to be my opinion — that at their very best (we’re talking when they were 26, 27, 28 years old), Murphy was the best player of the three. If you would prefer a little longer peak, Murphy looks even better.
Best four Consecutive Seasons, by Win Shares:
– Duke Snider (1953-56): 146 total
– Joe DiMaggio (1939-42): 138 total
– Dale Murphy (1982-85): 128 total
– Dave Winfield (1976-1979): 110 total
– Andre Dawson (1980-83): 108 total
– JIm Rice (1976-1979): 107 total
And …
Best Five Consecutive Seasons, by Win Shares:
– Joe DiMaggio (1937-1941): 175 total
– Duke Snider (1952-56): 171 total
– Dale Murphy (1982-86): 150 total
– Dave Winfield (1976-1980): 132 total
– Andre Dawson (1979-83): 132 total
– Jim Rice (1975-1979): 127 total
And …
Best Six Consecutive Seasons, by Win Shares
– Joe DiMaggio (1937-42): 207 total
– Duke Snider (1952-57): 196 total
– Dale Murphy (1982-87): 179 total
– Andre Dawson (1978-83): 153 total
– Dave Winfield (1975-80): 152 total
– Jim Rice (1975-80): 143 total
Here are some thoughts on this. Snider was absolutely fabulous for a five- or six-year period there. He was never the same player once the team moved to Los Angeles — never got more than 370 at-bats in his final seven seasons. His career counting numbers (like his 2116 hits or 406 homers) aren’t especially impressive, no more impressive than any our three candidates. But his career OPS+ of 140 is very impressive, and he was a dominant players in his prime. It took him a long time to get in, but I think he’s a worthy Hall of Famer.
DiMaggio, of course, was a dominant player whose prime ran right into World War II. You can have a lot of fun trying to figure out what DiMag’s numbers would have been without the war.
Then there’s Murphy. He was, by Win Shares, a dominant player for six seasons. He averaged 30 WS per season, which, as mentioned, is excellent. I have voted for Murphy because I believe that he was a Hall of Fame player for a long enough period of time. But that’s my opinion. I honestly don’t know how long someone has to play at the Hall of Fame level to be a Hall of Famer. I sway on Murphy every year.
Winfield, Dawson and Rice are a bit behind when it comes to a prime. I suppose you could keep going — seven-year prime, eight year, ten year, and eventually you will get to a place where Winfield passes DiMaggio (because he has more career Win Shares). But I’ll keep it here. If you are one of those people who think that a Hall of Famer is not about career numbers but about who was the best player, I think Murphy is the best choice of the three.
Now, let’s look at it another way:
Win Shares at Age 30:
– Duke Snider, 277
– Joe DiMaggio, 232
– Dale Murphy, 211
– Dave Winfield, 208
– Jim Rice, 204
– Andre Dawson, 200
At this point, Murphy was slightly in the lead, though you could argue that all of these guys were on Hall of Fame pace. Put it this way:
- Dawson’s 200 WS at 30 ties him with Hall of Famer Neilie Fox (also Don Mattingly and my guy Buddy Bell).
- Rice’s 204 WS at 30 ties him with Roger Clemens and puts him ahead of Billy Williams
- Murphy’s 211 WS at 30 ties him with a bunch of people including Brooks Robinson, Ernie Banks and Fergie Jenkins (also my guy Rocky Colavito) and puts him one ahead of Willie McCovey.
Win Shares at Age 32:
– Duke Snider, 308
– Joe DiMaggio, 286
– Dave Winfield, 256
– Dale Murphy, 252
– Andre Dawson, 236
– Jim Rice, 232
Now we’re getting a little separation. Murphy is just one behind Brooks Robinson and one ahead of Harmon Killebrew, but the Hall of Famers in that range are getting harder to find. Dawson is two behind Amos Otis (though tied with Paul Molitor — another great old player). Rice is one ahead of Roy White.
And then this:
Win Shares AFTER Age 32:
– Dave Winfield, 159
– Andre Dawson, 104
– Joe DiMaggio, 101
– Jim Rice, 47
– Duke Snider, 44
– Dale Murphy, 42
And now we see the secret for getting into the Hall of Fame — you just have to put up some numbers after your prime is over. Winfield managed to have a second prime and his post-32 numbers are there with Joe Morgan, Nolan Ryan and Tony Gwynn.
Dawson helped himself some in his later years, but perhaps not enough. Dawson as an older player is one WS ahead of Brooks Robinson, and also one ahead of Minnie Minoso, who was a good old player.
Rice, Murphy and Snider simply fell off the map. If Rice or Murphy had managed to have one or two more prime years, they would be in the Hall of Fame. I think Rice will get in anyway. I think Murphy won’t.
* * *
So what does it all mean? Heck if I know. I’m just babbling here. I’ve been going round and round on these three guys for years now. It seems to me Murphy was the best player, Dawson put up the best numbers and Rice had the best single-season. After that, it’s all what you think the Hall of Fame is about.
Loading ...
Amazing post here – something for everyone.
I had a similar experience to your breakfast/orange juice story. When I was in law school, the World’s Worst Burger King was next door. While Burger King is generally fine for me, this one was pretty awful. One time I took a quick study break, and wanted to get a cheeseburger (not a Whopper – too extravagant for my in-school budget), at 6:30 pm. They were out. Of cheeseburgers. At Burger King.
That BK later burned down. I wasn’t there when that ____ went down…
Fantastic rant about Bowie Kuhn. I didn’t know about the Satchel Paige snub before.
Sorry to comment only on the tangents – I enjoyed the entire post.
I’ll echo Jeff — great piece. And for the record, that Wiki factoid is correct: of eligible players, only Murphy and Maris have won multiple MVP awards without making the Hall. (Although Juan Gonzalez will almost certainly join that group someday. Frank Thomas has also won 2 MVP Awards, although as far as the Hall goes I suspect he’s as good as in.)
Great post, I remember when I started getting interested in baseball in the mid-to-late 80’s (when I was about 8-9 years old) I thought Murphy and Dawson were the best…then Murphy hit a wall in 1990, and it is still hard to believe that he ended his career with the Rox. Great post as always, Joe.
>Brian you’re forgetting a certain 7-time MVP who might not get in…
Good food for thought, unlike the Whopper. Which isn’t good for anything. I’m inclined to rate them Dawson, Rice, Murphy. I suppose Murphy did have the best peak, but I’ll take Dawson’s career and maybe I’m biased a little bit for Rice as 1978 was the first year I became a rabid fan. Maybe it’s the way we inflate our childhood memories, but he was scary. I loved Reggie Jackson as a kid, and thought he was basically a super hero in pinstripes. Rice is the one guy that six-year-old me might have admitted was even better.
I used to think all three of these guys were a hair short of being Hall worthy, but I’ve changed my tune on Dawson. I’d vote for him. I’d also probably vote for Rice. Murphy, I don’t feel as strongly about but these three are so tight that I probably have greater respect for someone that supports all three or none of them.
Delightful post, Joe. LOVE the Kuhn commentary. Putting him in the Hall does nothing, NOTHING to make the Hall a better chronicler of baseball history (while leaving Miller out is a massive disservice).
In 1989, three friends and I went on a baseball tour, as far west as Chicago (there was a rare two-day window when both the Cubs and White Sox were at home). Driving across Indiana one morning, there were cornfields as far as the eye could see. We stopped for breakfast — it was a breakfast-type joint, possibly a Bob Evans, but definitely of that genre — and we could not order cornbread. Not out of stock; they simply didn’t have it on the menu.
Here are all of the 2 (or more) time MVP winners (according to baseball-reference.com):
7. Barry Bonds
3. Yogi Berra
3. Roy Campanella
3. Joe DiMaggio
3. Jimmie Foxx
3. Mickey Mantle
3. Stan Musial
3. Alex Rodriguez
3. Mike Schmidt
2. Ernie Banks
2. Johnny Bench
2. Mickey Cochrane
2. Lou Gehrig
2. Juan Gonzalez
2. Hank Greenberg
2. Rogers Hornsby
2. Carl Hubbell
2. Walter Johnson
2. Roger Maris
2. Willie Mays
2. Joe Morgan
2. Dale Murphy
2. Hal Newhouser
2. Cal Ripken
2. Frank Robinson
2. Frank Thomas
2. Ted Williams
2. Robin Yount
So it looks like Wiki got it right this time. . .
This blog leads me back to wondering why Albert Belle’s nomination got such short shrift. Here’s a guy who put up win shares of 37, 31 and 30. So he had both peak and three-year spans better than Rice, Winfield, Murphy and Dawson, but he wasn’t given the slightest consideration for the Hall of Fame.
But ya gotta remember who does the voting for the HoF – the baseball writers. And Albert was one surly dude. He rarely gave interviews – making the writers job tougher – and was mean to Hannah Storm – so what? The boy could flat out rake. Maybe not HoF rake – but he could hit with Rice, Murphy, and Dawson. He at least deserves the same consideration.
Two things that I hate:
1) “Jim Rice was the best player in the AL from 1975-86″- like he deserved 12 MVPs or something. (OK, he deserved the one he got.) Since when did staying in one league count as a point in a player’s favor? Count Win Shares for a period specially selected for Rice, say 1975-86, and he’s about 7th in the majors- way behind Mike Schmidt, probably behind Eddie Murray (debut 1977).
2) Dead Poets Society. Partly because of the rubbish ending- “why don’t we have a sympathetic character die?- that’ll be dramatic.” And partly because the whole film requires the viewer to think “I wish Robin Williams had been my teacher. For him, I would have suspended my usual cynicism, and would have developed a lifelong love of poetry. In no way would we have all bullied him and made him wish he were stacking shelves for a living.” Sorry, he’s Robin Williams, too much of a stretch.
Great piece. First of all, thanks for reminding me of Leon Wagner. I love Burger King, though. Only eat there once every few years, but love it. Also, coming out of a southern California beach community where Pizza Hut is known as Pizza Slut, I’m surprised to say that it’s about the best pizza available commercially in France or the UK. Otherwise you get this *really* skinny stuff. It’s like, Slut or Domino’s. Best pizza ever: Spiro’s in Seattle, or Portofino’s on Orcas Island.
Most importantly, though, as a life-long admirer of Wile E. Coyote I have to object in the strongest terms to his being compared to Bowie Kuhn! You don’t believe that East coast establishment hoo-ha about him never catching the dumb bird, do you?!
and a Merry Christmas to all of Joe’s readers!
Clayton
Great post except for the part of Marvin Milller. He absolutely, without a doubt, doesn not belong in the Hall of Fame. FIrst, he was never a member of organized baseball. He was a lawyer. If he’s in, then so should clubhouse guys and grounds keepers.
Where’s the love for George Toma?
MIller did more to screw up the guy than any one guy since Chick Gandil. Maybe Kuhn doesn’t belong either. Who cares. But Miller does not!!!!!!!!
I especially liked the Terry Cashman “Talking Baseball” part. In fact, I think Cashman wrote about 59 different versions of that song. One that I have on a cd of baseball tunes has the following line;
“Seaver, Garvey, Schmidt, and Vida Blue…if Cooperstown is calling its for you….talking baseball…Willie, Mickey, and the Duke.”
This must have been written in the early 80s, though I’m not sure people at that point thought Vida Blue was heading to the HOF. Perhaps he just needed a name to rhymn with “you”?
Joe, if you need some help reading all the Pozcar emails I’ll help you out. Sort of like a JoePoz-by-proxy. I’m even willing to change my name.
And holy schnike, what a long post. It could take me all (work-)day to get through it.
I was at an Arby’s that ran out of roast beef.
I’ve got a Wendy’s in Columbus, Ohio that was out of french fries. Since it was a Wendy’s, I could have a baked potato.
I think I’d agree with you more or less, Joe. I like to fill up my ballot. Dawson’s a bit ahead of Murphy but they’re both on there. Rice is a bit further down and doesn’t quite make it, and that might be a bit of a backlash against his supporters because their arguments tend to be things like “Everybody was afraid of Jim Rice”, and I find that annoying. Give me some facts. OTOH, I won’t be terribly upset if he gets in, which I suspect he will. The Hall has made worse mistakes….this month.
Well, I’m pulled in many directions here, looking at the stats, I think I would vote when I read the pros section and not vote when I read the cons, so the stats make it 50-50 for me. Then I think of comparisons. I think of guys like Canseco or Belle (and granted they are more my time period) who did have really great seasons or just seem insanely good during their primes and know that they wouldn’t get in. Now, when I look at it that these three guys, whom I might not even consider all that much better than those other two, do these guys get in just because they weren’t bad guys? I don’t feel really good about that. Because, I’m not so sure that the other ones just don’t get in because they were bad guys. However, I thought of it this way, if I’m gonna compare them to other guys, I did it this way. When I was younger, and collected baseball cards, I used to go to this shop that would sell sandwich packs. They came in those clear plastic cases of about 100 cards and you could see the two outside cards which would always be all-stars like these guys or a Molitor or Yount or something like that. So you knew if you bought this pack you were getting at least two good guys with 98 potential Kevin Maas and Darryl Boston cards mixed in. So, when I was going for these, I think I just put them all together there. So, since guys like Molitor and Yount and those guys are in, just regular good players, who were great in their time, these guys do deserve a shot in, so I’m still unsure whether I’d vote them in or not, but if I did, I think all or none is the best decision. But that Bonds, Willie, and Dawson short list is pretty interesting…I guess I’ll just wait for my Pozcars ballot.
About ten years ago, after a concert at Sandstone, we hit the drive-thru of the McDonalds on Rainbow Blvd and Wesport Rd.
They were out of hamburgers. I kid you not.
Your comments about Duke Snider got me to thinking about one of the many flaws of the Hall of Fame voting process. As you said, Duke Snider received only 17% of the votes his first year of eligibility in 1970 and wasn’t elected until 1980. Every year, with regard to players who hang around on the ballot (think Bert Blyleven), someone invariably says, as a reason for not voting them in, “They weren’t good enough they’re first year and they’re not getting any better.” I usually disagree with that sentiment, but looking at Snider’s case, it makes me wonder.
In 1974, Mickey Mantle was voted in. In 1975, Ralph Kiner was voted in. In 1979, Willie Mays was voted in. And finally in 1980, Snider made it, along with Al Kaline. But here’s my point. In Snider’s first year he wasn’t deemed worthy. Then two clear cut Hall of Fame outfielders were voted in in Mays and Mantle with Kiner making it on the “career ending injury sympathy vote” (after several years on the ballot himself). But even removing Kiner from the discussion, the standard for outfielders was clearly raised with the inclusion of Mays and Mantle. So if Snider wasn’t good enough to make the Hall before they were voted in, and he was inferior to both of them, why was he suddenly qualified after they made it?
Joe –
As always, great post. I’ll focus on the baseball after this, but first I have to thank you for the comments about the Burger King ad. I hated that thing the first time I saw it, and it’s done nothing but grate on my nerves since. Not as much as Beyonce’s execrable “Lemme Upgraaaaade Ya” ad, but close.
Back to the baseball. One thing I have always wanted from the Hall of Fame voters is consistency. Not between them, that would be unrealistic in the extreme. But I don’t think it’s too much to ask a single voter to apply whatever his standards are consistently. I think, for the most part, you’ve done that here. I can quibble with a few things (e.g. Why mention that Rice was helped by Fenway without mentioning that Murphy spent most of his salad days playing in a place called “The Launching Pad” that was actually a slightly better hitters park than Fenway?) but for the most part, I think you were even-handed here, so thank you.
That said, as the resident Jim Rice proponent, I’m going to mention a couple of things that I think are important. First, it’s important to note that Rice’s personality absolutely deterred his Hall of Fame resume, not because all voters are getting even with him (though I suspect there is some element of that), but because it kept him from getting a job when he could have still played. After being released by the Red Sox in 1989, Rice finally got his various physical problems fixed. (That’s another point – can someone please mention that the Red Sox medical staff was notoriously bad during Rice’s career? Marty Barrett actually sued them for malpractice and won a settlement, and the team doctor had a massive conflict of interest because he was also a minority owner of the club.) When the 1990 season started, Rice was healthy and could have played. Hell, nine years later, at age 46, Rice was still slamming baseballs off and over The Green Monster at the All-Star festivities in Boston. He could have played in 1990, maybe for two or three years. He was only 37.
The thing is, no one called. To stay in shape, Rice signed to play in something called the Senior Professional Baseball Association, a league for players 35 and older, where he was a proud member of the St. Petersburg Pelicans. Still no one called. Perhaps it was because he hadn’t put up many numbers his final three years in Boston, or perhaps his surly reputation had simply preceded him, but not one club offered him a contract, not even a minor-league, Sammy Sosa kind of deal where he could show up at Spring Training and try to win a job. Nothing. So he quit and went home to South Carolina.
Now, say that hadn’t happened. Suppose instead that Rice had been signed by some club that wanted to make him the right-handed half of a DH platoon. Rice was still an above average hitter against lefties, even in his final three poor seasons in Boston (781 OPS, league average was about 740). If he got a couple hundred plate appearances each season at ages 37-39, doing nothing but whacking lefties a bit better than the league, he probably would have added 150 hits, 15-20 homers and 70-75 RBI to his totals, pushing him past the “magic” 2500-hit, 400-homer, 1500-RBI plateaus. Had that happened, my guess is that he’d already be in the Hall of Fame.
My question is this; how freaking silly is that? Three years as a decent platoon DH is nothing to put on a Hall of Fame resume, but THAT’S what is keeping Rice out of the Hall? Seriously? I wonder if Hall voters have ever considered any of this.
Finally, it bears mentioning that Rice was the first black baseball player of any note to play his entire career in Boston. I am a Bostonian by birth and extremely proud of it, but my hometown’s record on race relations makes me cringe. The Red Sox history on race is no better. It is not exaggerating the point to say that while Rice may have enjoyed the dimensions of Fenway Park when he was in the batter’s box, he really had no other home field advantage at all. Home fans regularly hurled racial slurs at him for the left field stands. Many of the media members who were crafting the public’s image of Rice in his early years where indistinguishable in their world outlook from the Southies who were throwing rocks at black kids during the Boston busing riots. For four years of Rice’s time in Boston, he was the only black player on the team. I don’t want to portray Rice as the Boston version of Jackie Robinson, but at the same time I think that if Rice’s attitude wasn’t the greatest, it’s only fair to cut him some slack given his unique situation.
Murphy? Rice? Dawson? Put them all in. I mean it. They are all worthy. – TL
Just last week, I was at a Dunkin’ Donuts stand that was out of COFFEE!!
If I had a vote, I’d vote for Rice or Murphy before Dawson. If we accept the current worst inductees as the lower limit, they all should probably be in. But in my ideal HoF, none of them would be in.
First of all BK is almost universally agreed to be the worst of the big 3, but they do have this sourdough bacon double that you have to try.
Great post, that lays it all out there. We all know that OBP is just about the most important of the simple hitting stats, and Dawson’s raw OBP is just bad for a HOF. However, if you were going to think of a hypothetical player with a bad OBP but still is HOF worthy, he would have all of Dawson’s charachteristics: Great D at a key position, excellent baserunner, extremely low run environment, off the charts peer respect.
If you want to see another fun list, take a look at the all time leaders in extra base hits. It’s a whole bunch of monster HOF and Dawson. Also, I think Dawson is sold a little short in Win Shares. Win Shares are heavily dependent on on base percentage, and don’t take baserunning into account enough. Also, it’s one thing to have the ability to hit well with runners on base, and another to actually do it a huge amount of times. I don’t think Win Shares give quite enough credit as you would expect for a hitter with all his RBI. Also, Murphy gets a bit too much credit for playing 162 games each year, and I don’t think he was quite a good defensive CF as all his putouts would have you believe.
Bottom line is I think Dawson clearly deserves it, and would love for him and The Rock to go in together some year. I think Murphy and Rice fall short, but if they get voted in I won’t have a conniption fit.
This post is tragic. There’s no way you can objectively compare a Whopper with the “marquis” burgers of Mickie D’s or Wendy’s. Would I rather eat at five guys? Sure. But the Whopper is a real Hamburger, while the Big Mac and the Single (Double or whatever) are just congealed Grease.
Clearly you’ve been brain-washed by the constant advertising on TV that things at McDonald’s actually taste good. It must have been the man in the clown suit.
Charbroiled > Fried
I called in to my local Pizza Hut once, and asked for pan crust. It turns out they were out of pan pizza. They had regular pizza, but not pan pizza. Something to think about.
Love the blog Joe.
As a small Hall guy, I don’t want any of the three in. That said, if I had a vote, and knew that the Murph had no legitimate chance (which he doesn’t), I’d give him a sentimental vote just because I love the guy.
If I had a vote and thought my vote could get him in, I’d leave him off and cry myself to sleep at night.
Hey Joe,
Love your blogs. While my personal fantasy ballot doesn’t include any of the three guys mentioned above, I wanted to make one argument regarding OBP that I don’t think gets accounted for very much. When these guys were playing, the stat just wasn’t stressed very much with regards to the approach to winning baseball.
Baseball analysis has obviously advanced remarkably in the last two decades, but it seems silly to me to forget how the perceptions of the time shaped the approach these guys must have taken to the game. We see OBP as being amongst the most important offensive indicators today, but it was barely mentioned in the 80’s, and to hold Dawson, Murphy and Rice accountable for an entire generation’s inability to grasp its importance just strikes me as…imbalanced. Isn’t greatness measured by the culture it was achieved within?
Being a Canadian, I was fully aware of Dawson’s dominance during the Montreal years. When he was being discussed, there was never a comment made like ‘Oh man, but that OBP…’ because it didn’t strike anyone as making a difference. Andre Dawson was a remarkably talented player, by Ryne Sandberg’s account a tremendously hard worker and an obvious student of the game. Are we to believe that if he’d been told ‘Take some more pitches. Walks really are as good as hits’ he wouldn’t have been able to comply? His OBP was what it was because no one cared enough to make him improve it.
I can’t help feeling like we’re judging horses on which one makes the best car. Regardless, thanks for yet another outstanding read.
Gary
I wouldn’t vote any of them in. None of them are good enough. Dwight Evans is better than Rice. Raines is better than Dawson. And Dale Murphy, well, his teammates certainly weren’t better than him, but he just stunk once he got out of his peak. Personally, the only outfielder who hasn’t made the cut yet, and who I would lobby hard for, is Albert “Don’t Call Me Joey” Belle. His numbers are simply out of this world. And his hip injury ended his career, or he would have ended up with the requisite stats. In any case, Belle is a valid lesson to players: HOF voters will maintain a grudge against a player many years after his retirement. Unless his name is Kirby Puckett. Then, of course, it’s totally cool to keep beating the hell out of the women in your life..
To echo the “OBP not being respected by the mainstream in the 80s” point, I want add my two cents.
Especially in the case of Dawson & Murphy, the teams they were on were largely a case of “if I don’t swing and knock this guy in, nobody will” as far as RBIs go. I mean, Raines was on for Dawson all the time, but who was behind him? Some .250 banjo hitter? What good is a walk? At least that’s a theory.
Not that I agree with that now, of course, but I remember when Frank Thomas was getting criticism in the Chicago papers in the early 90s because he was TOO selective. He wouldn’t swing unless the pitch was perfect, stranding runners and missing RBIs. That’s how it was back then.
Of course, I can’t speak for the other HOFers of the other eras, but in the 80s it seemed that sluggers were sluggers and the table-setters were walkers. Except the occasional Mike Schmidt that is.
I say, make us all Pozcar voters! If we wrote you an e-mail, we’re in!
Another guy that belongs in this discussion is Jimmy Wynn. 128 OPS+, same as Rice, 305 win shares (Rice 282), 3 best WS sum to 100. Completely overlooked because he played in the Astrodome and Dodger Stadium in the 60s/70s, so his raw numbers don’t look impressive.
I’d also like to see, but don’t have time to do, a similar analysis of Jim Edmonds. Not too many career CFs have his offensive numbers.
Editor’s note: Stay tuned. Big Jimmy Wynn post coming up.
Yeah, if Kirby-Freaking-Puckett is in, Belle should be in.
Although I hate that lowest-common-denominator game…
Anyhoo, the thing about Rice and Murphy is that people thought they were going in the HOF while they were playing. Not so much Raines.
Here’s a question which has been bothering me for sometime — why do baseball fans argue so much about who belongs in the Hall of Fame but you don’t hear such arguments from football fans about who goes to Canton? Is the criteria for getting into Canton that much lower (a couple of Pro Bowl seasons)? Is it that Cooperstown has been around longer and is more “sacred”? Or maybe football fans eat too often at Burger King and Pizza Hut?
I can’t stand that BK commercial either, but it doesn’t change the fact that the whopper tastes like a real burger, while the Big Mac is a double helping of disgusting, flavorless grease patties. On more serious matters – you’re right that Bowie Kuhn does not belong in Cooperstown; it’s probably best if we could remember him as little as possible. But I don’t understand the outrage at the omission of Marvin Miller. The Hall of Fame has four categories of inductees: players, managers, umpires, and “executives & pioneers.” (The only “pioneer” who never held an official position in baseball was Henry Chadwick, a writer who helped develop the rules and first kept track of statistics.) Admittedly, Miller had a great impact on baseball. But he deserves an exhibit, not a placque. If we must induct a pioneer for players’ rights, let it be Curt Flood.
Joe,
Outstanding blog. I love these types of debates, and the discussion of MVP or HOF entry is one of my favorites. I would love to see Blyleven get in (60 CG shutouts – are you kidding me!) and I like Rice, but I’m not sold on Murphy. But I’ll focus my debate on Andre Dawson. I think he was a dominant player for his time and is, to me, a clear HOFamer.
Let’s look first at his career. The only eligible players not in the Hall who have more hits than Andre’s 2771 are Rose and Harold Baines. Only Baines has more RBI than Dawson’s 1591 and is not in. He is #22 ALL-TIME in extra-base hits (the other 21 are Bonds, Griffey, Rose or are in the HOF already). The fact that he played in an era when offense was down (from 1976-1996 the NL BA .257, NL OBP .322) only makes those accomplishments greater.
Now let’s focus on his best years (1980-1983). He batted .302 (NL average was .257) and finished in the top 10 in the NL in 3 of those 4 years. His OBP was .349 (NL average .320). He finished top 3 in the NL in extra-base hits each year (1st twice) and top 3 in the NL in total bases in 1981, 1982 and 1983. He was top 2 in Power/Speed Number every year from 1978-1983. He also won a Gold Glove each year from 1980-1983. Simply put, he was a dominant player in his league for those years.
His career numbers put him in the conversation with current HOFamers, and his best years establish him as a dominant player compared to his peers for a string of years. If he plays anywhere other than Montreal for the first ELEVEN years of his career, he is better known by the public (and the media) and is placed in the context of other HOF players.
That’s just my 2 cents. Thanks for listening.
Thanks for the great post. It is mentioned in the article that Dale Murphy had an enormous impact on kids growing up in the South during his dominant seasons with the Braves. Well, thanks to Superstation WTBS, the influence of those early to mid-1980’s Braves teams extended well past the South, and all the way to my little hometown of 1500 people in rural North Dakota. I was 10 to 14 years old during Murphy’s hayday, and watched the Braves religiously, as the Twins were not on TV, and the only other option was the floundering Cubs on cable giant WGN. Murphy was the epitome of the perfect role model- he played hard, never complained, never swore at the umps, and was always a solid citizen. I could not have had a better sports-related role model than Dale Murphy.
Now that I’m in my mid-30’s, and have three young children of my own, I wonder who will be their sports idol? Will there be another Dale Murphy? I don’t think so. And that is why I would be ecstatic if Dale Murphy ever makes it into the Hall of Fame (although I’m not holding my breath). His greatness may have been fleeting, but it was true greatness in every sense, and that deserves recognition over prolonged pretty-good-but-not-quite-greatness (such as Winfield, Blyleven, ect…). If character counts, and impact on the game and on the fans who love the game counts, Murphy must be in the Hall of Fame.
I had the good fortune of working for a professional sports team for a few years, and one of the perks was meeting athletes. Out of the hundreds of athletes I met, the nicest athlete (and it’s not even close), was Dale Murphy. Just a genuine good guy. Autographed a bat for me without me even asking when he realized how much I admired him. This fulfilled a childhood dream for me, as my number in baseball, basketball, and football youth leagues was “3,” after Murphy. He was, and will always be, my favorite athlete. Whether he belongs in the Hall of Fame, well…this is where I can see the argument for “So and so was a dominant player from this year to this year,” because Murphy WAS dominant in the early to mid 80s on utterly DEPLORABLE Braves teams.
Oh, and not sure if this tops some of the others (like Dunkin Donuts being out of coffee!), but there was a restaurant in Augusta (my hometown growing up, where you started out, Joe!) called “The Dizzy Chicken.” It was right next to a movie theater. After seeing a movie, my friend and I went there for dinner. We both ordered chicken fingers (their signature dish, of course) and got this reply from the waitress: “Sorry, we’re out of chicken.” After 7-10 seconds to think “WTF???” we got up and left. Unbelievable.
I actually like Burger King better than McDonalds, although I like Wendy’s better than both.
I wrote a long article about Rice when he retired that made essentially the points Paul White made above, except making a direct comparison between Rice and Yaz, the successive Boston LF’s. Yaz’s last six years he hit about .275 with about 15 HR and 70 RBI. If Rice could have hung around to do that (and why would he need to be mediocre for six years to prove he was a great player), he would have ended up with 3,000 hits, 400 HR and 1500 RBI and he would have walked into the Hall (since at that time, Yaz was the first American Leaguer ever to have 3,000 hits and 400 HR together, these numbers were pretty significant). He didn’t, and the writers killed him in the voting for not hanging around. Yaz they loved, he made the numbers, had the Triple Crown and the 7 Gold Gloves, but many, many of his seasons were average at best. Rice was the most feared hitter in the A.L. for about 10 years and did some freakish things at the plate. Should be in the Hall. Great blog, by the way.
Something that I think need to be measure is the cost for the teams of these three players because the use of replacement players for the games they loss by injuries .
Dawson played 21 seasons but only 10 seasons of 140 games or more and never played a complete season.
Murphy was an ironman playing 12 seasons of 150 games or more including 9 years in a row where he played 1383 games of 1395 played by The Braves, an incredible streak. This lapse btw included his six prime years.
Rice was in the middle of the road, he played 10 seasons of more than 140 games including 7 seasons of 150 or more.
Probably this effort payback for Murphy and Rice and left Dawson plays 21 years.
I really like Burger King. Used to skip school there. Two double cheeseburgers for $2.
I was doing a weeklong fast from solid food for a week of prayer we were having at church. After the Sunday night service that closed it out, I went to Subway for a sandwich at about 7:15 p.m., and they were closed because they were out of bread. As if this wasn’t bad enough, there were two teenage workers in there having a food fight with the uncooked dough. I was not pleased.
Being a Red Sox fan of course I am partial to Rice. I clearly remeber him carrying that boy into the dugout. I also remeber him scooping up Jerry Remy once when he was injured on the field. His strength was absolutely impressive, and natural. His numbers may be borderline, but Murphy, Dawson and himself represent a time when baseball was not burdened by steroid allegations. Vote them all in.
Great post.
My “BK experience” was about 10 years ago I got stuck on a layover at the St. Louis airport. So, to kill the time, I went into a watering hole in the airport and ordered a Budweiser. They didn’t have Budweiser on tap. I was in St. Louis, and they didn’t have Bud on tap. I don’t even prefer Budweiser, but was stunned. St. Louis? Only Miller Lite available? whatever.
If it helps, I’d tend to rank them Dawson, Rice, Murphy. I think longevity has to account for something (this is what keeps guys with a couple of great years — like Brady Anderson and Brian Roberts — from getting into the Hall. Murphy was a great player, no doubt, but that average is horrid. Dawson was a phenomenal player for a long time — I’d likely vote him in, and not the other two…