Dale Murphy and the Good Guys

[bk400]

Dale Murphy was one of my favorite players growing up as a kid. Just a class act. I'm personally disappointed that he seems to have trouble making the Hall. Not to rehash the arguments, but suffice it to say the consensus seems to be that he is on the cusp in terms of the body of his baseball work.

But isn't there a history of "good guys" ultimately making it to the Hall of Fame? I'm thinking Pee Wee Reese. Gary Carter. Fred McGriff. I would have thought that Dale Murphy ultimately makes it in, given that he seems like the ultimate good guy and is unlikely to pull a Lawrence Taylor and do something that embarrasses his legacy and his sport.

If so and he gets enshrined, maybe that short stack of raw 1977 RCs I have sitting in top loaders might be worth something...

Thoughts?

[Seven]

Originally Posted by bk400

Dale Murphy was one of my favorite players growing up as a kid. Just a class act. I'm personally disappointed that he seems to have trouble making the Hall. Not to rehash the arguments, but suffice it to say the consensus seems to be that he is on the cusp in terms of the body of his baseball work.

But isn't there a history of "good guys" ultimately making it to the Hall of Fame? I'm thinking Pee Wee Reese. Gary Carter. Fred McGriff. I would have thought that Dale Murphy ultimately makes it in, given that he seems like the ultimate good guy and is unlikely to pull a Lawrence Taylor and do something that embarrasses his legacy and his sport.

If so and he gets enshrined, maybe that short stack of raw 1977 RCs I have sitting in top loaders might be worth something...

Thoughts?

It would not surprise me if Murphy ended up making it in, however I think there are players that are more deserving of enshrinement. The Hall of Fame, and the voting process, is a fickle thing. We've seen plenty of cases in the past, where the Old Veterans Committee started packing the Hall with their friends. Through the various committee's that exist now, I would think Murphy has a decent shot.

To talk about the two of the three players you mentioned, I think you're doing at a minimum, Carter and Reese some disservice. Reese, while absolutely, a good guy, was an elite defensive shortstop, and while lacking in the "counting stats" department, was a very valuable player on offense. While I don't like to use WAR as a be all, end all statistic, he nearly put up 70 WAR, despite missing three years due to World War II.

Gary Carter according to the JAWS metric, (A player's JAWS is their career WAR averaged with their 7-year peak WAR), is second all time, only to Johnny Bench. He was another elite talent.

[todeen]

He has traditional stat numbers Hits, Runs, and RBI similar to Joey Votto, but less WAR - just 49! Votto has 64 WAR. Votto also has a better lifetime BA of .296 (Murphy .265), OBP .411 (Murphy .346) SLG .513 (Murphy .469). These traditional stats show where the difference in WAR come from.

Votto is borderline with most people assuming he'll be enshrined; whereas Murphy is borderline with the assumption he'll never make it in. Some would say "Hall of very good." In March Madness lingo, Votto is a team that is "Last 4 in" while Murphy is a team that is "First 4 out."

Here's another take. Lots of people like to talk about peak years. The guys that focus on peak years argue for 7-10 year runs as elite talent. When I look at Dale Murphy, I could count 6 years. Someone considerable to just missing out on peak years is Felix Hernandez. I think he should be enshrined for playing for awful Mariners teams. But others argue his peak years don't reach that 7 year minimum.

Harold Baines, who everyone loves to hate for being enshrined, seems similar to Dale Murphy. Tony LaRussa argued Baines was a good guy to - a players player. If Murphy makes it in, he will be accused of cronyism and lowering the standards of the HOF. It's best to let him be a good guy who people want to support and hope will be enshrined, rather than be dragged through the mud.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[bk400]

Thanks, Seven. I appreciate in particular your reminding me that Gary Carter was second only to Bench in his generation of catchers.

Gary Carter was also one of my favorite players -- but I only watched him as a Met. So he's an absolute hero. And totally clutch (Game 6, 10th inning and all that...). And a much better role model for kids than basically everyone else on that 1986 team.

Fred McGriff, to be honest, probably deserved to be in the Hall much earlier. If it weren't for the strike, he'd be in the 500 club for sure.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by todeen

He has traditional stat numbers Hits, Runs, and RBI similar to Joey Votto, but less WAR - just 49! Votto has 64 WAR. Votto also has a better lifetime BA of .296 (Murphy .265), OBP .411 (Murphy .346) SLG .513 (Murphy .469). These traditional stats show where the difference in WAR come from.

Votto is borderline with most people assuming he'll be enshrined; whereas Murphy is borderline with the assumption he'll never make it in. Some would say "Hall of very good." In March Madness lingo, Votto is a team that is "Last 4 in" while Murphy is a team that is "First 4 out."

Harold Baines, who everyone loves to hate for being enshrined, seems similar to Dale Murphy. Tony LaRussa argued Baines was a good guy to - a players player. If Murphy makes it in, he will be accused of cronyism and lowering the standards of the HOF. It's best to let him be a good guy who people want to support and hope will be enshrined, rather than be dragged through the mud.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

The child in me hates you for saying this

In all seriousness, though, Murphy did win the NL MVP two years in a row, meaning that a lot of people thought he was best in the business in his prime. I don't know how many two-time (non-roided) MVPs aren't in the Hall, but it probably isn't a long list.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by bk400

The child in me hates you for saying this

In all seriousness, though, Murphy did win the NL MVP two years in a row, meaning that a lot of people thought he was best in the business in his prime. I don't know how many two-time (non-roided) MVPs aren't in the Hall, but it probably isn't a long list.

Roger Maris comes right to mind. Not sure if there are any others.

[deweyinthehall]

My hope of hopes is to one day see not only Murphy but Dwight Evans as well enshrined.

After them, the only other players from their era that I think have been given a raw deal over the years are Dave Parker and perhaps Dave Concepcion.

Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any other 70s-mid80s players who should be in.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by bk400

In all seriousness, though, Murphy did win the NL MVP two years in a row, meaning that a lot of people thought he was best in the business in his prime.

I think the argument "lowering the status of the HOF" is absolutely stupid. People redefine fame as "godlike status." IMO I would include a lot more people: Paul O'Neill, Bernie Williams, Murphy, Helton, Felix Hernandez.

I'm beating a dead horse, but Felix Hernandez had 114 no decisions. His ERA is 2.91 in those no decisions. He had 118 non-win quality starts in which his record was 0-42. He had 180 quality starts where he gave up 2 runs or fewer = 43% of his career starts total. He had 149 quality starts where he received 2 runs or fewer of run support from the Mariners.

Why do I bring up the crappy Mariners? Because Murphy played for some crappy/bad/mediocre Braves teams. HOF voters are biased against players whose stats are negatively effected by the bad players around them. For instance, people say about Joey Votto: "he really should have more RBI if he were a true HOF player." Well, that requires bad players around him to get on base. I think the same can be said for Murphy. On the same argument, people claim Derek Jeter would be a borderline HOF if he were on a mediocre team. It's stupid.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[Seven]

Originally Posted by deweyinthehall

My hope of hopes is to one day see not only Murphy but Dwight Evans as well enshrined.

After them, the only other players from their era that I think have been given a raw deal over the years are Dave Parker and perhaps Dave Concepcion.

Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any other 70s-mid80s players who should be in.

I'd argue that if you're enshrining Murphy, you should also be enshrining Mattingly. Their advanced metrics are near identical, despite Mattingly playing nearly 400 less games than Murphy.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Seven

I'd argue that if you're enshrining Murphy, you should also be enshrining Mattingly. Their advanced metrics are near identical, despite Mattingly playing nearly 400 less games than Murphy.

I think Murphy and Mattingly both get in. Dwight Evans, Dave Parker, Steve Garvey, Lou Whitaker, Dick Allen, Curt Schilling and Tommy John will also get the call soon.

[deweyinthehall]

Good call on Dick Allen - I forgot him and was just looking at his stats again recently - no doubt about him.

And Mattingly - had he had just one more healthy season in him, had he been a regular in 1996 and played with the Yankees in the Series, can there be any doubt he would already be in? The '96 series would have been a celebration of his career, even if he struck out every time at bat.