The Murph
Posted: January 12th, 2009 | Filed under: Baseball | 73 Comments »
I have some Hall of Fame reaction, of course. But first, I had this ready to roll when Rice got in.
* * *
Now that Jim Rice is in the Baseball Hall of Fame, I want to ask my fellow voters to take a very, very hard look at Dale Murphy. I have waited for a few years now for someone to emerge as the semi-official Hall of Fame spokesman for Dale Murphy … and I have to say with a touch of surprise and disappointment that few have really emerged. Jim Rice has had numerous people in the national media who have boldly spoken up on his behalf. Bert Blyleven has an Internet army of zealots — I consider myself one of these — who press his case. Jack Morris has his disciples, and some pretty big media names have come out swinging lately for Andre Dawson.
And I think that’s right. Sure, I think that all of these men are somewhat flawed Hall of Fame candidates for all the reasons we’ve mentioned here before. Rice’s numbers are home-park inflated and his career was short. Blyleven didn’t win 300 games and was generally not perceived as a great pitcher in his time. Morris has a 3.90 ERA and never once had a sub 3.00 ERA. Dawson did not quite reach 3,000 hits and his .323 on-base percentage would be by far the lowest of any outfielder in the Hall of Fame.
They have all needed — and they have all DESERVED — to have supporters trumpeting their strengths — someone to point out that Rice had a .502 career slugging percentage and finished Top 5 in the MVP voting six times; Blyleven had more than 3,700 strikeouts and is ninth all-time in shutouts; Morris won 254 games and pitched that brilliant Game 7 in 1991; Dawson won Gold Gloves and hit 438 homers and stole 314 bases, Lee Smith had 478 saves and so on.
But there has been relative silence for Murphy. I have never felt like I should be Dale Murphy’s Paul Revere, shouting his accomplishments as I ride from town to town. I see his flaws too clearly. He absolutely fell off the map after he turned 31 — he hit a miserable .234 the last 2,658 plate appearances of his career. He tried desperately to get to 400 home runs but, tellingly, ended up two homers short. He probably was not the best player in the National League either year that he won the MVP awards. And he, like Rice, relied heavily on a good hitters home park.
Still, Murphy does have a case, a real case. The trouble is, few make that case, and now that Jim Rice has been elected, well, I guess I should speak up. I have very little doubt in my mind that Dale Murphy was a better player than Jim Rice. And there’s also this: Remember what it says … Voting shall be based on:
1. The player’s record (statistical record, I’m sure)
2. Playing ability
3. Integrity
4. Sportsmanship
5. Character
6. Contribution to his team(s)
This is not to say that Jim Rice did not represent these qualities. But I’m not sure anyone of his era better represented those six things than Dale Murphy.
* * *
Career statistics …
Jim Rice and Dale Murphy played at about the same time — Rice is almost exactly three years older than Murphy (Rice was born March 8, 1953; Murphy was born March 12, 1956). And that three year difference holds up for most of their career. Rice played 24 games in 1974 before becoming a regular in ‘75. Murphy played 18 games in 1977 before becoming a regular in 1978. Three years apart.
Rice played his last full year in 1988 and lingered around for 1989. Murphy played his last full year in 1991 and lingered around for two more seasons. Three years apart.
It’s almost a precise match — Rice had 9,058 plate appearances, Murphy had 9,040. You just won’t get much closer than that.
Both men had relatively short career. Both won MVPs. Both were helped tremendously by their home parks. Rice put up about 57.5% of his career OPS value at Fenway Park. Murphy put up about about 56.5% of his career value at the Launching Pad in Atlanta and, briefly, Veteran’s Stadium. Neither one has anything resembling Hall of Fame numbers in visiting parks, though Rice’s .277/.330/.459 on the road is actually a bit better than Murphy’s .250/.324/.440. Rice also played on much better teams, so make whatever adjustments you would like for that.
Rice generally has most of the advantages in career offensive numbers.
J. Rice: .298/.352/.502, 373 doubles, 79 triples, 1,451 RBIs, 1,249 runs, 128 OPS+.
Murphy: .265/.346/.469, 350 doubles, 39 triples, 1,266 RBIs, 1,197 runs, 121 OPS+.
But Murphy does have some parts of his offensive game that hold up very well.
J. Rice: 382 homers, 670 walks, 58 steals, 315 double plays, 6,221 outs, 3,186 times on base, .287 EQA
Murphy: 398 homers, 986 walks, 161 steals, 209 double plays, 6,192 outs, 3,125 times on base, .287 EQA
Now, remember this is just OFFENSE. Murphy was the superior defensive player who, for most of his career, played center field. And just about every advanced stat I can find that incorporates defense indicates that Murphy was the more valuable player over his career:
WARP3
(Baseball Prospectus Wins Above Replacement Player, which incorporates defense)
Rice: 80.2
Murphy: 86.4
Win Shares
Rice: 282
Murphy: 294
BRAR plus FRAR
(Prospectus’ Batting Runs Above Replacement plus Fielding Runs Above Replacement — don’t know if this is a viable statistic, but what the heck?):
Rice: 559 + 102 = 661
Murphy: 565 + 246 = 811
BRAA plus FRAA
(Prospectus’ Batting Runs Above Average plus Fielding Runs Above Average — this helps Rice considerably)
Rice: 290 – 60 = 230
Murphy: 293 – 52 = 241
Here are a few other career achievements for comparison:
Rice: 8 All-Star Games
Murphy: 7 All-Star Games
Rice: 4 All-Star Game Starts.
Murphy: 5 All-Star Game Starts.
Rice: 1 MVP Award.
Murphy: 2 MVP Awards.
Rice: 6 times Top 5 in the MVP balloting.
Murphy: 2 times Top 5 in the MVP balloting.
Rice: 0 Gold Gloves.
Murphy: 5 Gold Gloves.
Rice: 2 Silver Sluggers.
Murphy: 4 Silver Sluggers.
Rice: Led league in slugging (twice), OPS (once), Hits (once), Total bases (four times), Triples (once), Homers (three times), RBIs (twice), OPS+ (once), Times on Base (once). Twice finished in Top 10 in on-base percentage.
Murphy: Led league in slugging (twice), OPS (once), Runs (once), Total bases (once — second twice), Homers (twice), RBIs (twice), Walks (once), Times on Base (once). Five times finished in Top 10 in on-base percentage.
Murphy also won the Lou Gehrig Award in ‘85 and the Roberto Clemente Award in ‘88, so you can that for whatever it’s worth. Integrity? Sportsmanship? Character? It’s all there.
* * *
Year by year …
It seems to me the more you break down the career statistics of Rice and Murphy, the more clear it becomes that they’re awfully close … I think Murphy’s better when you consider speed and defense. But, as mentioned, both had relatively short careers. Both were finished at 36 (though Murphy sadly came back for those 26 games with Colorado). Rice aged a little better better … he had three very good seasons after his Age 31 year, and a couple of average ones on top. Murphy was pretty much through as a great player after his Age 31 year, and only had two even average seasons after that.
But this leads to my second point: I think Dale Murphy’s peak was higher than Rice’s peak.
Best year
Jim Rice (1978): .315/.370/.600, 46 homers, 139 RBIs, 121 runs, 157 OPS+, .315 EQA, 36 Win Shares
Dale Murphy (1987): .295/.417/.580, 44 homers, 105 RBIs, 115 runs, 157 OPS+, .323 EQA, 29 Win Shares
Rice led the league in triples and homers, a rare double. And he had more runs and RBIs. But Murphy played on a terrible Braves team and had a 47 point advantage in on-base percentage … he walked 115 times. EDGE RICE..
Second best year
Jim Rice (1979): .325/.382/.596, 39 homers, 130 RBIs, 117 runs, 154 OPS+, .310 EQA, 28 Win Shares
Dale Murphy (1983): .302/.393/.540, 36 homers, 121 RBIs, 131 runs, 30 SBs, 149 OPS+, .325 EQA, 32 Win Shares
Rice was just about as good in ‘79 as he was in ‘78. Murphy has an edge in OBP and runs, and this was his 30-30 season. I think Murphy had the better year, but let’s CALL IT A DRAW.
Third best year
Jim Rice (1986): .324/.384/.490, 20 homers, 110 RBIs, 98 runs, 136 OPS+, .300 EQA, 28 Win Shares
Dale Murphy (1985): .300/.388/.539, 37 homers, 111 RBIs, 118 runs, 157 OPS+, .321 EQA, 31 Win Shares
Murphy also won a Gold Glove. EDGE MURPHY.
Fourth best year
Jim Rice (1977): .320/.376/.593, 39 homers, 114 RBIs. 104 runs, 147 OPS+, .304 EQA, 26 Win Shares.
Dale Murphy (1984): .290/.372/.547, 36 homers, 100 RBIs, 94 runs, 149 OPS+, .314 EQA, 33 Win Shares
By Win Shares, this was actually Murphy’s BEST season. Both led the league in slugging. But Murphy won a Gold Glove and added nineteen steals EDGE MURPHY.
Fifth best year
Jim Rice (1983): .304/.361/.550, 39 homers, 126 RBIs, 90 runs, 141 OPS+, .299 EQA, 24 Win Shares
Dale Murphy (1982): .281/.378/.507, 36 homers, 109 RBIs, 113 runs. 142 OPS+, .313 EQA, 32 Win Shares
This was Murphy’s first MVP season. EDGE MURPHY.
Sixth best year
Jim Rice (1982): .309/.375/.494, 24 homers, 97 RBIs, 86 runs, 130 OPS+, .292 EQA, 21 Win Shares
Dale Murphy (1980): .281/.349/.510, 33 homers, 89 RBIs, 98 runs, 135 OPS+, .299 EQA, 28 Win Shares
This time it’s Rice with the on-base average and Murphy with the homer and slugging advantage. I think you give a SLIGHT EDGE MURPHY.
Seventh best year
Jim Rice (1975): .309/.350/.491, 22 homers, 102 RBIs. 92 runs, 127 OPS+, .286 EQA, 20 Win Shares
Dale Murphy (1986): .265/.347/.477, 29 homers, 83 RBIs, 89 runs, 121 OPS+, .285 EQA, 22 Win Shares
Rice’s rookie year. SLIGHT EDGE RICE.
As you can see, except for Rice’s monster 1978 season, Murphy has a Win Shares advantage EVERY SINGLE YEAR, often a sizable one. He has an OPS+ advantage four out of the seven years (with one tie). He leads in Equivalent Average every year except the last one.
This really represents the peak of both men. Neither player had another Win Shares season of 20+ — they both had seven good-to-excellent seasons. But Rice was a better player out of peak — he actually had a few more OK seasons. His next five Win Share seasons are 17, 17, 16, 15, 14.
Murphy, meanwhile, has less to show for the rest of his career. His next five Win Share seasons are 15, 14, 13, 12, 11.
So you could say that Rice was able to hang on as a decent player for longer and with a bit more value. That’s certainly worth something, I guess it’s for each voter to decide how much.
* * *
Conclusion …
I have to admit that I’m quite surprised by the utter lack of Hall of Fame momentum for Dale Murphy. When I look at the stats, it seems clear to me that Dale Murphy was about as good an offensive player as Rice, he was a better overall player, and he had a higher peak. He also matches Rice in pretty much all of the accomplishments, and he’s one of only two Hall of Fame eligibles to win two MVPs and not be elected to the Hall (the other is Roger Maris).
But the reason I’m surprised his Hall of Fame case goes nowhere is the stuff BEYOND the numbers. When Dale Murphy played he was, at least in my memory and at least for a while, regarded as the best player in baseball. Jim Rice was never regarded that way. He may have been feared, and he may have been respected, but his defense was much maligned (in fact, his defense only came to be regarded as decent/reasonable after he retired). His teammates didn’t always have nice stuff to say about him. He was slow too.
Murphy meanwhile won those back-to-back MVPs, he was the glamour boy on WTBS, he was Captain America when it became clear that Steve Garvey could not fill the bill. I’m pretty sure he was NOT the best player in baseball to be quite blunt about it, but lots of people felt that way about him. He could run, he played Gold Glove defense in centerfield, he hit with power (Murphy was one of the few right-handed hitters of his time who routinely hit opposite field homers), he was (best we knew) the ideal teammates, he signed every autograph, he considered himself a role model, he was the star of stars.
These were only perceptions, of course, but perceptions matter when it comes to the Hall of Fame. The perception of Bruce Sutter got him into the Hall, not his numbers. The perception of Catfish Hunter got him into the Hall of Fame, not his win total. The perception of Kirby Puckett played a huge role in his Hall of Fame case. And the perception of Jim Rice as this outsized character from the age of disco is a big reason why he has gained 275 Hall of Fame votes over the last 15 years.
So what about Murphy? Where did those perceptions go? I don’t know. I don’t buy into East Coast bias, not at all, but I do buy into the notion that a lot of people remember those Red Sox teams, remember the ‘75 World Series*, remember the ‘78 Pennant Race, remember the Buckner Series, remember that great 1977 season and so on. Rice was prominent in all of those (prominent in ‘75 because he was a rookie who did not play in the World Series). And he is remembered.
*09/09/09
And Murphy — though he was on television every day back then, he played on such miserable teams (his Braves only winning seasons were ‘82 and ‘83, and he won MVP both years) that the power of the moment has faded with the years. And nobody seems to be singing his song. And he is forgotten.
With Jim Rice’s election, I think a lot of fans — Andre Dawson fans, Dick Allen fans, Frank Howard fans, Dewey Evans fans (of which I’m one), Joe Torre fans, Dave Parker fans, Bernie Williams fans and many others — will come out swinging for their guy. I think that’s only right. None of this is meant to diminish the various problems with Murphy’s Hall of Fame case. But I think his Hall of Fame argument demands a closer look. Now that Jim Rice has been elected, I hope Murphy gets that closer look.
Loading ...
I always thought of Murphy and Dawson as similar but they don’t show up that way on the sim scores section of baseball-reference. Still, with Rice getting in and Dawson likely to make it next year, this should help Murphy’s candidacy, though Dale doesn’t have many years left on the ballot.
The problem with “Well, Rice got in, so X player should too” argument is that it sets up a race to the bottom. For every player who got in, there will be one more just on the cusp who won’t make it. If we they accept Murphy because they took Rice, where does it end?
This is not to say that Murph may not deserve the Hall of his own accord, but it’s a danger path to walk down when players are getting in because they are close enough to the guys who already made it.
[...] The Murph » Joe Posnanski [...]
I can’t get on board with Murphy when I feel so disgusted that Blyleven gets no love.
Glad to see you using the whole of Rule 5, Joe. You had dismissed the last three as “bull”, and it’s true that HOF, according to its communications office, supplies no guidelines or standards to back them up. But even if HOF left them vague and they were only window dressing in 1939 (see T. Cobb), that doesn’t mean they can’t be influential now.
This is spot-on, I think. Braves Journal’s Mac Thomason has been fighting this battle for a while. In his analysis of Rice vs. Murphy, he comes up with 5 reasons Murphy was the superior player:
1. Fenway Park was a better hitters’ park than Fulton County was.
2. The National League was the superior league to the AL during their careers.
3. Rice hit into a ton of double plays.
4. Murph walked a lot more, at least in his best seasons.
5. Murphy was a Gold Glove centerfielder, Rice an average-at-best left fielder.
Joe mentioned in a previous post that the Baseball Hall of Fame – unlike its football counterpart – is to take character into consideration when determining who should be in Cooperstown. No player up for consideration for the Hall played with the class and humility of Dale Murphy. If one considers character along with talent, Murphy is a surefire Hall of Famer.
I am shocked that Murphy’s Hall of Fame case has not been pressed by the Gen X baseball writers who grew up watching Braves games on cable. I grew up in central North Dakota, but became a diehard fan of a team located thousands of miles away in Atlanta thanks to Murphy. How many other kids grew up wanting to play like Dale Murphy after watching all those games on WTBS? I have a hard time believing that more baseball writers were not influenced by cable television, but maybe most baseball writers are from either Coast, or from urban areas that were not reliant on cable for their baseball fix. Or maybe there simply are not enough Gen X baseball writers.
Murphy was a five-tool player before anyone used the term “five-tool player.” He’s a back-to-back MVP. He has was quite clearly the best – or at least one of the very best – players in baseball for six or seven years. Like Joe, I’m perplexed by the exclusion of someone who was so good for so many years like Bert Blyleven, but I’m likewise perplexed that the same writers who argue Blyleven did not dominate the game also exclude Murphy, who clearly was at the top of the game for much of the 1980’s.
Thanks for making the case Joe.
Does Jim Rice remind you at all of what Ryan Howard could be if he keeps up his current career path? Maybe overrated generally by the public and media, winning 1 or 2 MVPs while finishing in top 5 quite a few times and whose number totals might not be enough to get him in alone due to a late start to his career?
No FLOW-BEE!?!?! I refuse to vote until this ingenious of an invention is added, now Im going to read the post…
I vividly remember watching Jim Rice. I don’t remember watching Dale Murphy play at all. Everything I knew of Dale Murphy as a kid I learned from the back of his baseball card.
Our family didn’t get cable until 1994, and therein lies the ugly truth. Murphy is the victim of reverse class warfare*. Poor people and communists** are keeping Dale Murphy out of the HOF.
*Reverse class warfare makes no sense whatsoever.
**”Red” Sox. Coincidence? I think not.
Dwade made my point for me.
This is an excellent article, but while it makes a good case that Murphy was a better player than Jim Rice, it doesn’t make the case that Murphy really deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, because you’re comparing him to someone else who didn’t deserve to get in. Arguing from the lowest standard-bearers defeats the whole purpose of trying to draw a better line.
I can’t make myself too angry about Rice getting in – he’s not the worst choice in there (Murphy wouldn’t be either), and as a Red Sox fan it’s nice to see Jim Ed honored even if I don’t think he deserved it – but I don’t want him to be used as a new argument standard for future HoF consideration.
All well and good, but I’ve been to the Hall of Fame, and all the really exciting parts involve guys who didn’t need a “case” to get in.
Murph was one of my handful of favorite players when I was just discovering baseball in ‘82 & ‘83. Did you know that between 1980 – 1988, the only person to out homer him was Mike Schmidt? But I always felt he faded too quickly. I’ve always felt he was HOF material….low end of The Hall, but definitely should be in. Now that a comparable player is in, the only excuse is the voters who shouldn’t be voting…
This is off-topic, but … the fact that Tim Raines has received less than 25% of the vote in his first two HoF elections is, without a doubt, one of the most shameful indictments of the BBWAA that I can possibly imagine.
On this ballot, you had the two best leadoff hitters in baseball history, one in his second year of consideration, and another in his debut.
Rickey Henderson deservedly was elected, with 28 asinine voters not marking his name on their ballot, for 95% of the vote (511 total).
Tim Raines got 22.6% (122, which I’m sure included Joe’s vote).
I don’t mean to cherry-pick, but let’s look at some peak seasons by Henderson and Raines, who were contemporaries:
1981-93 H R BA OBP SLG SB TB
Raines 2,049 1,205 .299 .388 .430 744 2,952
Henderson 1,864 1,426 .290 .408 .453 962 2,908
I think it’s fair to say that calling Raines “little Rickey” is a compliment. Both deserve to be in; they were nearly identical players at their peak; Henderson just had astonishing longevity that Raines cannot match.
I understand your case for Murph…and I know that you are a bigger fan of OBP vs BA, but that .265 lifetime average is just awful. That’s just a below-average average — not the average of a Hall of Famer unless he did something else amazing to overcome it (like hitting a huge number of HRs, was the best defensive player ever at his position, won a ton of games as the team leader, etc). He doesn’t have anything outstanding that just sets him apart.
The 28 people who didn’t vote for Ricky Henderson should lose their ability to vote. Seriously. That type of stuff is just ridiculous. There is no case that can be made that Ricky Henderson does not belong in the HOF.
You’re cherry-picking numbers to make Murphy look good. Who cares about Win Shares and OPS+. Rice has a huge advantage in fearsomeness.
Actually, who cares about the Hall of Fame at all? What a joke. Its clear that the people who are charged with deciding who gets in and who doesn’t don’t take the Hall seriously. Why should anybody else? I don’t know how else to explain the 28 people that didn’t vote for Ricky Henderson or the votes for Jay Bell and Jesse Orosco, etc.
As a Red Sox fan I’m kind of torn about Rice. On the one hand I’m never going to be upset about seeing a player I grew up loving in the Hall. On the other hand I hate that a “B” is going to be associated with a borderline candidate. I don’t think Rice should be in the hall. If a candidate is borderline at best I don’t think they should be in. Of course with that being said I completely believe that both Dewey and Raines should be in there. But since I don’t believe that Rice deserved it I also don’t believe that Murphy deserves it. I can’t really justify these opinions except to say that I judge Red Sox players on a pretty strict sabermetric analysis to compensate for homerism (Dewey > Rice imho). Everyone else gets the baseball card treatment; if I would have traded for them they get in. Which means Raines is in and Murphy is out. Thank god I don’t have a HoF vote.
I missed Murphy’s career. I was an AL guy 100% back then and didn’t have cable or Baseball Tonight. Murphy was like an exotic character (a white 5-tool centerfielder on a bad team?) playing in another galaxy. So this post is enlightening and gives me a little detail on what made Murph special to watch (opp-field power, CF defense). It’s too late to save his iffy HoF candidacy. Anyway, Joe mentions he is a Dwight Evans fan — just today I was calling up bb-ref to support the case that Dewey, with his undervalued attributes of walks, slg%, and OF defense, is seriously underrated in an accounting of (1) great players of the 1970s/80s and (2) reasons why the Rice-led Red Sox won a lot. So I hope Joe might someday do a post like this comparing Evans and Rice (or Evans and whoever).
…”1. Fenway Park was a better hitters’ park than Fulton County was.
2. The National League was the superior league to the AL during their careers.
3. Rice hit into a ton of double plays.
4. Murph walked a lot more, at least in his best seasons.
5. Murphy was a Gold Glove centerfielder, Rice an average-at-best left fielder.”
I think Dale Murphy should be in the Hall of Fame. If I had a vote, I’d cast it for him. That said, I have two problems with this articles, one with Joe and one with the comment snipped above.
First, if you’re going to draw up a comparison of two players and it comes out as closely as it does here Joe, you have to be prepared with some really good reasons why you voted for one and not the other, something along the lines of “Murphy is just about the last guy I would vote for and Rice is just about the first guy I wouldn’t vote for.” It’s that close, in my view, so close that I really don’t see how anyone could support one and not the other.
My problem with the comment above is the same one many people had with some Rice supporters – it uses patently false information. Murphy has a good enough case already, you don’t have to resort to a falsehood to make him look as good or better than Jim Rice. The falsehood in this case was that Fenway was a better hitter’s park than Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium. It demonstrably, factually was NOT. In fact, it was Murphy’s home park that was slightly better for hitters during the course of their respective careers. A more minor issue is with the double plays. Comparing the RATES at which they hit into double plays is fair, comparing the gross totals is quite obviously not fair considering that Rice hit behind Wade Boggs and Dwight Evans and Dale Murphy didn’t have anyone remotely comparable batting in front of him to create double play situations. I’m all in favor of making comparisons, but make them on valid, factual information. Doing otherwise is as bad as saying how “feared” or “dominant” someone was.
I’m happy Rice got in. I don’t think he deserved to be in, but hey!
While reading this and thinking of the how Rice being in and Murphy being out is due mostly to one having a lobbying group and one not, I was reminded of something I read about how U.S. Grant does not get the credit he deserves, either as head of the UNion army or a two-term president: Grant’s enemies were better writers than his friends.
Keep it up, Joe. You against the world.
The MLB Network was showing game 2 of the ‘89 ALCS tween Oakland and Toronto. Ricky walks, Ricky steals 2nd, Ricky steals 3rd. Comes home on a grounder. Man, what a player!
I think this sums up the conundrum of Jim Rice pretty well.
http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2009/01/12/the-dugout-lets-all-sit-around-and-think-about-jim-rice-for-se/
relentless.
Regarding Grant, I’m not sure it’s that his friends weren’t good writers, I think it’s more that they were busy counting the money they illegally grafted thanks to being his friend while he was President.
First ballot President HOFers:
Washington
Lincoln
Jefferson (not a fan, but his stats are hard to ignore)
FDR
The Jim Rice/Bert Blylevens of the President HOF debate: Andrew Jackson (widely regarded as the most feared President of his era), Woodrow Wilson, Ronald Reagan.
“he’s one of only two Hall of Fame eligibles to win two MVPs and not be elected to the Hall (the other is Roger Maris).”
Soon to be joined by Going Going Gonzalez (eligible in ‘11).
After a quick look at B-Ref, Murphy seems to be about equal to Rice once y0u take position and defense into account. But I hope the HoF standard won’t become “As good as Sutter or Rice.” That way lies a big, big hall.
Also, Rickey! I may have to make my first trip to Cooperstown this year for his induction. I can’t wait to hear him refer to himself in the 3rd person fifteen times in his speech.
Brent-
I think Joe’s case is that Murphy was as good offensively overall as Rice, except for Average. Murphy was as good or better than Rice at helping his team score runs. I think that says something about how overrated batting average can be.
That said, I think a lot of voters can’t see past the .265.
As usual, Joe Pos is right on the money. If Pete Rose can be kept OUT of the HOF for “character” issues, then Dale Murphy should be a slam-dunk to get IN. This is a man who was so revered by his teammates, that they wouldn’t even curse in front of him…plus, he had the respect for the game. He got out, only 2 HRs short of the magic 400. How many guys would have just stuck around trying to get those last two, irregardless of how it hurt the team? Most of them, I would say. But not Dale Murphy. He didn’t let his personal glory come before the teams success.
Whether or not he ever gets into the Hall, Dale Murphy will always be a winner.
I was a Dale Murphy fan from the age of 10. I remember one Christmas getting all Dale Murphy stuff…the satin Braves Jacket, Dale Murphy jersery, posters, pins, cards…you name it. I took it all to college with me to….it looked pretty funny on my side of the room, my room mate was a beauty queen from Simi Valley, CA. Yes, I am a girl….married with two of my own children now. I have had the e-mail address for years of murphfan03. Wonder if I think he should be in the Hall of Fame???? He is not only a great player but one of the few “good guys” in professional sports….
Electing Rice and scrutinizing the next years HOF ballot newbies, there are only 3 questions(for next election):
1. Is Barry Larkin a 1st ballot HOFR?
2. Can Dawson gain 8% more votes in 1 yr.?
3. Is Fred McGriff the next Rice?
I don’t think Murphy deserves to be in, and I don’t think Rice deserves to be in. But, it doesn’t matter what I think. I will never be happy with the HOF until Ron Santo and Alan Trammel are in.
Murph’s .265 .346 .469 is pretty weak for a HOF. Tough call on all these guys. Say what you want about Albert Belle, but his numbers jump off the page at me.
Thank you. I have always wondered about murph. He was my hero in the back yard. His defense has been forgotten. Thank you for carrying the banner.
I grew up watching “The Murph.” A couple points I thought should stand out: 3 of the voting requirements involve Integrity, Character and Sportsmanship. As good as his stats were, he truly presents these qualities. I heard an interview of him on MLB on XM about his new website: Iwon’tcheat.com where he attempts to influence young athletes and adults to practice intergrity in sports: (no drugs) in school (academic honesty) and relationships.
A couple of notes about his stats. Though their numbers are similar consider one more thing: Who was hitting around each player?
If they walked Rice there was Lynn, Fisk, Yaz, Evans, George or someone else. Rice could be more choosy. Pitchers had to pitch to him or risk being crushed by a big inning.
Murphy had to be less choosy. If he did not pick up the runner or try to make something happen who would??? Perry, Terry Harper, Bruce Benedict??? It was Murphy or nothing. He had no protection.
Also consider the pitching Murph had to endure: Seaver, Carlton, Sutton, Soto, Gooden, Darling, Valenzuela (in his division). He had some wicked pitchers in his own division he had to face more often because of no inter league play.
Rice had Palmer Guidry and McGregor then the names drop dramatically. Especially in his division.
Rice played in the AL which score more runs. Yes, they both played in good hitters ballparks….but Fenway was better with a better line up in a hitter’s league (DH) with lower quality pitchers. Rice really should have hit better.
Murph’s numbers also took a hit when he had to go to the Astrodome. 9-12 games a year were held in this definite pitcher’s ballpark.
In 1987 Murphy lost the MVP vote narrowly….but according to the Sporting News…who was more valuable Andre Dawson on a good Cubs team or Murphy who prevented the Braves from being in
last place?
Murph’s career also could have been longer…maybe it ended to quickly….but I think it started too late. Remember he was drafted #1 as a catcher. Then he had to learn 1b then he was moved to the CF. To become of the best (if not the best in the 80’s) and win 5 gold gloves speaks volumes of his dedication.
Maybe Murphy should not be in the HoF (I think he does), but his career is too similar to Rice’s to be that different in voting. Had Murph been a Yank or BoSox he’d be in.
Joe,
Great post here. It will be nice to see somebody pick up the banner for Murph. He was by far my favorite player growing up and still one of my all time favorites. I suppose I was a little spoiled in that I picked a favorite player who never would and never did disappoint me with any off field behavior. He was always great with fans, great with teamates and great with media. Great ballplayer and possibly one of the few people you could actually say was a greater person than ballplayer.
No question, if Murph had been playing in a different era or for a better team, he would have been in the HOF a long time ago.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for trumpeting Dale Murphy’s candidacy. I remember quite well the careers of both Rice and Murphy. Rice was certainly a fine hitter, but I never read or heard people talk about him being the best player in the game. From 82-87, Murphy was ALWAYS in that discussion. In fact, I would imagine if we polled writers in 1987 about what current (i.e. 1987) players would make the Hall of Fame, Murphy would be a definite while Rice would warrant a, “Oh, yeah … maybe.”
“…Yes, they both played in good hitters ballparks….but Fenway was better…”
You guys can keep on saying that, but it just won’t make it so. The average annual park factor in Atlanta during Murphy’s time there was about 1.17. During Rice’s years, Fenway’s average park factor was about 1.14. These are facts.
“…Murph’s numbers also took a hit when he had to go to the Astrodome. 9-12 games a year were held in this definite pitcher’s ballpark…”
Actually, Murphy never played as many as a dozen games in the Astrodome in any single year. He played ten games there once, but it was almost always nine. Regardless, if we’re going to parse the road stadiums, then by all means note that Rice had to play 13-17 games every year in Yankee Stadium and Baltimore’s Memorial Stadium, two notorious pitcher’s parks.
“…In 1987 Murphy lost the MVP vote narrowly….but according to the Sporting News…who was more valuable Andre Dawson on a good Cubs team or Murphy…”
Yup, Murphy had 29 Win Shares in ‘87, compared to just 20 for Dawson, so clearly Murphy was more deserving. Sadly (for your argument) he was less deserving than Eric Davis, Tim Raines, Daryl Strawberry, Jack Clark and Ozzie Smith, who all had more Win Shares that year than Murphy’s 29. In fact, using Win Shares, Murphy didn’t deserve a single MVP award, let alone two, because his 32 Win Shares in ‘82 were considerably fewer than Mike Schmidt’s 37,and his 32 Win Shares in ‘83 were tied with Pedro Guerrero and less than Schmidt’s 35.
“…Murph’s career also could have been longer…maybe it ended to quickly….but I think it started too late…”
Okay, but then you also have to give Rice credit for the Red Sox’s foolish decision to leave him in Triple A for almost all of 1974. Despite the fact that Rice was in the middle of winning the Triple Crown, they let Tommy Harper continue to flounder (.237/.312/.318) as their regular left fielder for almost that entire season. So kindly add a year of counting stats (and a likely Rookie of the Year award since he wouldn’t have had Fred Lynn to compete with) to Rice’s totals, if you please.
Gee, this parsing is fun!
“…ice was certainly a fine hitter, but I never read or heard people talk about him being the best player in the game…”
So you weren’t a big Sports Illustrated fan?
http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/si_online/covers/images/1979/0409_mid.jpg
I remember the Murph as one of the best players in the NL back in the day. He was always highly feared and was pretty much the complete player, at least for a few years while he stole bases at a decent clip. It was a shame he flamed out early; if he’s hung in there with 3 more decent years, reached 450-500 homers, there’d have been zero doubt about his credentials, at least for the majority of the voters.
I wasn’t all that thrilled with Rice’s induction, but honestly, if his induction helps get guys like Murph and Tim Raines and Alan Trammel get the notice they deserve, I’m cool with it. Can we get Sweet Lou Whitaker back on the ballot, too? Talk about colossal fail on the voter’s behalf there.
[...] is an incredibly talented columnist and blogger and he makes his case for Murphy so effectively here that you wonder how anyone could ever argue with it. You have to wonder, too, if Joe wasn’t [...]
Look at the date on that cover though… the two are on the cover with that headline specifically because they’re the defending MVPs
i have always wondered about murphy’s lack of support. i was born in 1976 and grew up a cubs fan in illinois. everyday we either watched the cubs on wgn or the braves on wtbs. i know i was young when murphy played, but i remember him as one of the 3 best players in the NL. everytime he would come to the plate my father would always tell me how dangerous he was in every way. he would take away a sure double, steal a base, make you pitch to him or take his walk and if he could get to it he could hit it out.
the raines thing is just mind boggling. he was a better player than tony gwynn, and tony gwynn was no slouch. he got elected first ballot. raines was better than molitor as well.
blyleven should be in. other than the no hitters and longer career i see a lot of simularities between him and nolan ryan. i haven’t done the math. i am just saying if someone was to do the math i bet it would be closer than everyone thinks.
billy williams is one of my favorite players of all time. he wasn’t the best but he had a sweet swing (grandma had home movies from games).
-steven
“1. Is Barry Larkin a 1st ballot HOFR?”
I like Larkin a lot, but he will probably be around Trammell’s voting numbers. Just a guess.
“2. Can Dawson gain 8% more votes in 1 yr.?”
Alomar is the top new candidate so although I think he should go in, some may not think so and promote Dawson so that someone is elected next year. Blyleven also has a good shot for that reason.
“3. Is Fred McGriff the next Rice?”
Could be, but I don’t think he’ll make it.
The best piece I read on Murphy was this one from Dugout Central (http://www.dugoutcentral.com/blog/?p=1213) which I reference in a post saying ‘Nay’ to Rice and Murphy’.
Key points:
1) He didn’t just start a catcher (as #32 points out). He played it all through the minor leagues. i remember his first or second baseball card said C/1B. That’s 400 games of catching.
2) He didn’t just play CF for a decade with the Braves. He played nearly every single game for a decade. In a league frought with turf.
Add those two points together and it’s not surprising that he declined so quickly. Jim Rice, on the other hand, DH’d 1 game for every three he played in the OF. The shortest OF in baseball.
I think the CF position suffers from the great players like DiMaggio, Mantle, Mays, and Snider. Have any pure CFs gotten into the HOF that played from 1970 on aside from Puckett (Yount doesn’t count)? Griffey is a lock. Andruw Jones was close to one until he fell apart…
“Look at the date on that cover though… the two are on the cover with that headline specifically because they’re the defending MVPs.”
You’ll have to explain that logic to me. Being the defending MVP and getting on the cover of the premier sports publication of your time asking if you’re the best player in baseball somehow means that you’re NOT part of the discussion about being the best player in baseball? Huh?
Gates-
“First ballot President HOFers:
Washington
Lincoln
Jefferson (not a fan, but his stats are hard to ignore)
FDR”
You forgot Truman – who also should be a 1st ballot HOF President. Almost finished reading his biography by D. Mcullough, which is highly recommended.
I think Larkin will get in (maybe not 1st year); McGriff – no.
I also believe Murphy’s drop off and low career BA will be something that the voters will never get past. The majority will also never consider Win Shares; WARP; etc., or any other stat like those. He will not get in.
I agree, Truman must be in consideration for the HOF – and let’s not forget Teddy Roosevelt.
I honestly can’t speak on Murph’s career. The only recollection I have of him is an informal collection of his cards that remained parked in my card albums during my elementary years because I knew, even at age 9, that he was a pretty good player. In fact, he was good enough that he was added to my list of “non-Red Sox” player cards that I refused trade. (Others included Nolan Ryan, Jose Canseco, Matt Nokes, Todd Van Poppel) Okay, so Nokes and TVP were abberations. But I knew Murph was good. HOF good? If Puckett got in, I say Murph has to get in as well.
I have lost all interest in and respect for the Baseball HOF.
It is not the inclusion of Jim Rice into the hall or the exclusion of Bert Blyleven from the hall that has led me to cease following or caring …..but they help in my conclusion.
The issue that drives my disinterest and disrespect is the wanton hypocrisy surrounding the principles of those in power who assign a profoundly different standard to those who competed. For 15 years the commissioners office, the owners and the sportwriters turned a collective blind eye to the now obviously wanton use of performance enhancing drugs, yet now the sports writers refuse to consider those whom they SUSPECT of having used them.
That Mark McGwire received fewer votes yesterday than he did a year ago is as insane as Shoeless Joe’s continued exclusion from the hall. We now know that unless attitudes and “voting rules” change dramatically, Bonds, Clemens, Palmeiro, Sosa and many, many more well qualified ballplayers will never be allowed to be fairly considered for their on field accomplishments. I find that reality far more reflective of the management and sportswriters having their collective heads stuck in the sand for 15 years than I do of the ballplayers cheating to put up numbers.
Just think of the reality here: If Jose Canseco never writes a book the entire makeup of a generation of hall members would be significantly different!!
That bloggers and Joe, is the most absurd reality in my sixty year old baseball fan’s life. It’s as though the most guilty of all becomes the control factor for a generation of athletes who likely did more to enhance a great sport than any previous generation. Where would baseball be today were it not for the exploits of Sammy and Mark a decade ago? While I do not hold the answer to that curio, I do know with absolute certainty that the sport would be far less prosperous, less healthy than it is today.
It is time for those like Joe, who have a voice in this thing, to aggressively speak to the absurdities of blind arrogance displayed my mangement, ownership and sportwriters. Clear the air of assigning blame and move on. Bring credibility back to the sport and those who run it. PLEASE! PLEASE!
It’s surprising how many people would vote against Murphy and just ignore a large part of the actual voting criteria that is spelled out in the rules to do so. Too bad if you want the Hall to be just about numbers, the rules say that all these things should be considered:
1. The player’s record
2. Playing ability
3. Integrity
4. Sportsmanship
5. Character
6. Contribution to his team(s)
Yes, the voters let in some people who had poor sportsmanship, character and integrity. But they probably felt that for example, Cobb’s record, ability and contribution to his teams trumped his deficiencies in other areas.
The bottom line is that based on the voting criteria, Murphy is pretty clearly a Hall of Famer– his numbers and ability and contribution to his teams are comparable to many Hall of Famers, and his character, sportsmanship and integrity are by all accounts at the highest level. Looking at the criteria, how do you keep him out, other than just disregarding the actual voting instructions and making up your own?
While I agree that Murphy is deserving if Rice is in, why are we debating such marginal HOF’s when there is one glaring omission? Although Pete Rose will never get high marks for Integrity, Sportsmanship or Character, he has to be at the top of the other 3 categories the voters base their decision on. I’d prefer if they vote in someone who made a true, long lasting impression on the game over the borderline guys who get debated on yearly.
This topic could be brought to the forefront when Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are up for election in a few years. In a perfect world, I’d love to see a push to get voters to write in Charlie Hustle for the class of 2013 – and NOT vote for Clemens or Bonds. That could be an act of wiping the slate clean, and Clemens and Bonds could have their day in the sun the following year. Besides, won’t the hall start losing a little respect if Bruce Sutter and Jim Rice are in, but Pete Rose and Roger Clemens are not?
The one guy who will hurt Murphy and Dawson now is Fred McGriff. Borderline case, like Murphy and Dawson the general perception is he was a homers/rbi guy.
Next year is a dangerous one for Murph. I think he will stay on the ballot, but would not be surprised to see his vote total actually go down rather than up.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see the same happen to Dawson. The 80’s are a dead zone for HOF voters, and this influx of huge names from the 90’s is going to do some damage.
Edgar, Alomar, Larkin, and McGriff will all get a lot of support. Remember, most voters are NOT Bill James; they insist on limiting the number of people they cast their ballot for.
Murphy was my hero growing up. I now have a dog named after him. I would do almost anything to be able to take my child to Cooperstown one day to show him/her Dale Murphy’s plaque on the wall.
Paul White #35:
“…Yes, they both played in good hitters ballparks….but Fenway was better…â€
***You guys can keep on saying that, but it just won’t make it so. The average annual park factor in Atlanta during Murphy’s time there was about 1.17. During Rice’s years, Fenway’s average park factor was about 1.14. These are facts.***
Wrong. Those are NOT the facts. Don’t know where you got them; mine below are from B-R.
During the 12 years of peak activity (75-86 for Rice, 78-89 for Murphy; also, those are the years that Murphy played in Atlanta), the average park factor for batting in Fenway Park was 107.6; in A-FCS, it was 105.3. If you prefer to use the AIR factor (under “Special Batting” at B-R), the numbers are 102.3 and 99.3, respectively.
Granted, I am overweighting the ‘81 season, since it was not a full season, which marginally increases Fenway’s influence (107 v. 102 park factor, 94 v. 93 AIR). Also, AIR refers to the entire season, not just home games.
Nevertheless, it is plain as day that Fenway was a better hitters’ park during those days, and Rice received the benefit of playing there.
And either way, I don’t think either Rice or Murphy should be in the Hall.
I think people outside the region also have no idea how big a figure Dale Murphy was in the southeastern US. In addition to Georgia, the geographic footprint for the Braves at that time basically included North Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi. That’s not even taking into consideration the number of fans gained via TBS around the country. Murphy may have been the most popular player in all of MLB in the 1980s.
Just for fun, I used the neutralize stats button at Baseballreference.com for Rice and one of my favorite players as a child. Rice and this player just happened to have very similar careers as far as when they played and when their peaks were:
Anyway, Rice’s neutralized stats are first, followed by the other player:
G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO
SB Avg OBP SLG OPS RC ActG
2149 8384 1264 2435 371 79 378 1474 662 1465 59 .290 .343 .489 .832 1408 2089
2144 7518 1029 2227 516 68 200 1192 692 799 115 .296 .358 .463 .821 1245 2084
Pretty similar hitters, huh?
The second guy is Hal McRae.
BTW, here is Roy White’s neutralized stats:
1891 6929 1138 2057 340 55 182 890 1069 713 268 .297 .390 .441 .831 1205 1881
Pretty close too. I can see what Bill James meant.
Ah, but if you looked Dale Murphy in the eye, did you SEE a Hall of Famer there? Did Dale Murphy “strike a Hall of Fame pose in his first five or six years on the field?”
That’s the litmus test, Joe. At least according to some imbeciles who shall not be named that write for your club.
“The problem with “Well, Rice got in, so X player should too†argument is that it sets up a race to the bottom. For every player who got in, there will be one more just on the cusp who won’t make it. If we they accept Murphy because they took Rice, where does it end?”
Dwade,
This is EXACTLY why Rice shouldn’t have been allowed into the Hall in the first place.
find that reality far more reflective of the management and sportswriters having their collective heads stuck in the sand for 15 years than I do of the ballplayers cheating to put up numbers.
Chuck,
And here’s the kicker : Bud Selig will sail into the Hall of Fame, probably with the “Best Commissioner Ever” tag applied as well.
Gotta love it, right?
(Bleep) the Hall of Fame. As long as they keep letting the BBWAA imbeciles vote it’s not worthy of serious consideration. But it makes for good discussions.
Creston: Good discussions?….Or, just tired discussions?
Not only is Clueless Bud Selig likely to go in the HoF, but also we ALREADY have Bowie “I’m even worse than Happy Chandler” Kuhn in the HoF, and we DO NOT have Marvin Miller.
The Kuhn/Miller dichotomy is roughly equivalent to the Rock & Roll HoF inducting Pat Boone and not Elvis Presley (and, fortunately, they did the opposite).
“Wrong. Those are NOT the facts. Don’t know where you got them; mine below are from B-R.
During the 12 years of peak activity (75-86 for Rice, 78-89 for Murphy; also, those are the years that Murphy played in Atlanta), the average park factor for batting in Fenway Park was 107.6; in A-FCS, it was 105.3. If you prefer to use the AIR factor (under “Special Batting†at B-R), the numbers are 102.3 and 99.3, respectively.
Granted, I am overweighting the ‘81 season, since it was not a full season, which marginally increases Fenway’s influence (107 v. 102 park factor, 94 v. 93 AIR). Also, AIR refers to the entire season, not just home games.
Nevertheless, it is plain as day that Fenway was a better hitters’ park during those days, and Rice received the benefit of playing there.
And either way, I don’t think either Rice or Murphy should be in the Hall.
I stand by my original post, the data for which came from Retrosheet and included all seasons each played in those parks, not just cherry-picked peak seasons.
For the sake of accuracy, since I was going from memory in my original post…
Yearly Park Factors, Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium, 1976-1990
1976 – 1.272
1977 – 1.351
1978 – 1.304
1979 – 1.241
1980 – 1.025
1981 – 0.990
1982 – 1.164
1983 – 1.111
1984 – 1.208
1985 – 1.187
1986 – 1.061
1987 – 1.220
1988 – 1.153
1989 – 1.075
1990 – 1.076
1.163 Average
Yearly Park Factors, Fenway Park, 1974-1989
1974 – 1.140
1975 – 1.186
1976 – 1.234
1977 – 1.365
1978 – 1.142
1979 – 1.141
1980 – 1.050
1981 – 1.147
1982 – 1.215
1983 – 1.037
1984 – 1.233
1985 – 1.045
1986 – 0.972
1987 – 0.990
1988 – 1.190
1989 – 1.108
1.137 Average
All data courtesy of Retrosheet.org.
IIRC, I did a back-of-the-envelope type of calculation when I wrote that, and came up with different results. I also think that my basic point was that while Fulton County greatly boosted home run totals, it was less of a help in batting average than Fenway. But I don’t think it’s a big deal either way.
When I wrote about the double plays, part of that is that it’s a hobbyhorse of mine, but Rice hit into a ton of double plays, a lot more per PA than anyone else. I know he had good hitters in front of him and Murphy generally did not, but lots of people had good hitters in front of them and none of them hit into 35 or 36 double plays in a season. Rice has the top two GIDP seasons of all time, and was also tied for seventh. He’s sixth on the all-time GIDP list, and the five in front of him all had more than 3000 more plate appearances.
The important thing is that we have a Gold Glove centerfielder with two MVPs and a poor leftfielder with one, and they have similar peak value and neither has Hall of Fame career totals — and we’re putting the leftfielder in, then saying that the only reason he was kept out so long is that he was a jerk, while the centerfielder was the most respected player in baseball.
As a Reds fan who was age 10 in 1974, I worshiped the Big Red Machine dynasty teams, that lasted through about 1981. Just as the Reds went in the tank in 1982, who comes on to win the NL west?…yes the Braves. With their goody two shoes John Boy Walton clone(at least to my mind then ) star Dale Murphy. Then to top it all off the Braves became ” America’s Team “.
Ever since then the Braves supplanted the Dodgers as my least favorite NL team, and pretty much remain there to this day, so I really can’t get behind a Dale Murphy case for the HOF. That being said, I see where you are going, Joe, but since I was somewhat shocked to see that Jim Rice got in, I would have to say that putting anyone in because Jim Rice got in would be a poor choice for the HOF.
Objectively, I would probably rate Dave Parker — whose peak value is about as high as either Murphy or Rice, and whose career stats are a whole lot better — ahead of both, and also ahead of Dawson. But I’m not really objective about Murphy.
Joe, thanks for writing this. Great to see Murph get some recongnition, anyway.
I grew up in Ga idolizing Murphy. I will not pretend to hide my bias on the subject of the post. My first real memory of the ballpark is when I was taken to Fulton County on my 4th birthday. We left early but still arrived near game time. Murphy was signing autographs near the bullpen. As my parents and I reached our seats a few rows back, he was finishing up. I had a program and a pen and my father carried me to the wall as Murph had started to retreat to the dugout and wasat minimum off the track and 15 feet away when my dad yelled at him that I wanted an autograph for my birthday. My bday is in Septemeber and the Braves were horrible in ‘84 and out of it for awhile by this point. Murphy had every right to keep walking at the end of a long season. He didn’t. He came back and signed my program and told me happy birthday. Signed a couple more balls for others as well. Finally a few minutes later said thanks and went back to the dugout. That will always be how I remember Dale Murphy.
…”When I wrote about the double plays, part of that is that it’s a hobbyhorse of mine, but Rice hit into a ton of double plays, a lot more per PA than anyone else…Rice has the top two GIDP seasons of all time, and was also tied for seventh. He’s sixth on the all-time GIDP list, and the five in front of him all had more than 3000 more plate appearances.”
[heavy sigh]
I really don’t want to go down the path of analyzing double plays, because that’s not really the point of Joe’s post. Suffice it to say that looking at DPs as a percentage of PAs without examining DP opportunities, is next to worthless. To illustrate, the year Rice set the record for grounding into 36 DPs he faced 202 DP opportunities. Do you know how many full seasons Dave Winfield would have had 36 or more double plays if he’d ever been presented with 202 opportunities to do so? Four. How about Cal Ripken? Try SEVEN. Speaking of Ripken, do you know how many DP’s he’d have hit into in 1985 if he’d faced the same number of DP opportunities as Rice did that year? Forty-one. Needless to say, citing gross double play totals without giving the context in which they were tallied is utterly misleading.
(All data from BaseballProspectus.com)
Murphy did not deserve those GG’s. His raw fielding numbers were only as good as they were due to the bad team/fielding numbers distortion, and all those fly balls at the launching pad. The AL was better than the NL during his peak (no coincidence that the best AL players’ numbers did not stand out as much compared to the league). It’s a little suspicious that he bulked up so much, and hit a point where his ability disappeared overnight. And he was boring.
Maybe what the situation about Murphy tells us is that both Rice and Murphy as “borderline” candidates should not be in the HOF?
Someone help me understand how Jim Rice got in with 76% and Harold Baines is at 5.9% .9% away from losing eligibilty. Baines has Rice beat in every important offensive category but batting average .298 to .289.
Neither had any defensive game.
Baines is only 144 hits from 3,000? The difference between being in the Hall of Fame for Harold and 5.9% is 144 hits?!?!
2,866 big league hits and you get treated by the writers with a 5.9%?
“Someone help me understand how Jim Rice got in with 76% and Harold Baines is at 5.9% .9% away from losing eligibilty…”
Oh, alright. I’ll give it a shot.
“Baines has Rice beat in every important offensive category but batting average .298 to .289.”
Well, slugging percentage is kind of important, and Rice beat Baines by nearly 40 points. And steals are kind of important, and as slow Rice was, he still managed nearly twice as many steals (at a much better success rate) as Baines. Triples are important, and Rice had about 60% more of those than Baines. OPS+ is really important, and Rice’s 128 mark was better than Baines’ 120. And, of course, since Baines played about 750 more games than Rice, comparing just career totals is misleading. Per 162 games, Rice had more hits, doubles, triples, homers, RBI, runs and runs created than Baines, while drawing almost as many walks and posting a better batting average and slugging percentage.
“Neither had any defensive game.”
No, Baines had no defensive game, playing almost 60% of his career games as a DH and being a subpar defender in the others. Rice played 75% of his games in the field, and was a decent defensive player for much of his time. Overall, Rice wasn’t a great defender, but he was perfectly adequate until his mid-30s, while Baines was a defensive liability almost from the first day he walked onto a major league field.
“Baines is only 144 hits from 3,000? The difference between being in the Hall of Fame for Harold and 5.9% is 144 hits?!?!”
Well, that assumes that getting 3,000 hits should be an automatic ticket. So far it has been, but that string will break with Rafael Palmeiro and arguably should have broken with Lou Brock. Hanging around forever until you pass a magical milestone shouldn’t, in and of itself, be a ticket to Cooperstown, IMO.
“2,866 big league hits and you get treated by the writers with a 5.9%?”
Look at it this way…in light of the fact that some guys who were vastly superior ballplayers to Baines (Lou Whitaker, Bobby Grich, Will Clark, Ted Simmons, Jose Cruz, Darrell Evans, etc.) were all dumped from the ballot after just one year, Baines should consider himself lucky to still be hanging on through three elections.
I don’t believe Dale Murphy is a Hall of Famer. But neither is Jim Rice.
my vote this year (in approximate order of merit) would’ve been Henderson of course (29 times to cancel out 28 dimwits and give him a uninamous vote???), McGwire, Blyleven, Raines, Trammell.
Dale Murphy, a great role model, paragon of character and integrity? Certainly. But the Hall of Fame recognizes a deranged hardass like Ty Cobb instead… on the field, I think the five I picked outclass Murphy … and Dawson does too, though I would not put him past the 75% limit.
Those five.
The fact that Andrew Jackson and Woodrow Wilson have recieved so few votes underscores the decline of the American school system.
I have to throw in my lot with the other posters from Georgia and confess that there’s no way that I can be objective about this, having grown up in the 80s idolizing number 3. I believe that he belongs in the Hall.
As one of the other posters mentioned, I have also named my dog after Murphy. When I told my wife why I picked the name, she was all for it. Unfortunately, she wasn’t as enthusiastic about Horner. There’s a dog up the street from me named Murphy and I’d bet anything he was named after Murphy too. (As an aside, I wonder how common that phenomenon is. Are there dogs in Minnesota named Blyleven?)
To give you some idea how popular Murphy was when I was a kid, part of the admissions process for my high school was to write an essay on your hero. My all-time heroes are my dad, my grandfather and Dale Murphy. Of course, Murphy had a little more star power than my father and grandfather so I wrote about him. Later I found out from one of the English teachers that about half my class had picked Murphy as the subject of their essay.
People often point out how quickly Murphy’s career declined, but what they fail to mention is that he carried some terrible teams while playing almost every day for an entire decade. That, coupled with being brought up as a catcher, led to the onset of chronic knee problems. And to literally add insult to injury, when the Braves traded him, it was to Philadelphia and Veteran’s stadium, which had one of the worst, if not the worst, playing surfaces in all of baseball.
I submit that if any of the following had occurred, if Murphy had a better supporting cast of players around him for most of his career, if he had played in one of the major media markets (the Braves were still in the NL West back then so almost half their games started after 10 EST), if he had the luxury of DH-ing the latter stages of his career, or if had been traded somewhere with a grass surface, then there would have been no question about Murphy’s candidacy for the Hall.
Finally, if Murf never makes it to the Hall, then they should just eliminate character, integrity and sportsmanship as voting criteria, because if they don’t help him, they won’t help anyone.