- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Dale Murphy, HOF?? Should be!!!!
Posted on 8/3/09 at 8:13 am to schulte
Posted on 8/3/09 at 8:13 am to schulte
What does Dave Kingman have to do with this? He is nowhere near similar to either of Murphy or Dawson, and not as good. Then again, I brought up Raines, who I believe was better than both. And Rice, who is in the Hall now, who I believe is inferior to both.
Look, Dawson’s OBP is terrible. He’s a player that, philosophically, you are never going to convince me of his value because he is the exact kind of player I believe to be grossly overrated: someone who doesn’t walk but has some power and can keep a good BA. But he was an out machine. The basic job of a hitter is to not make outs. Dawson failed at the most basic level of a hitter. He did a lot of other things well, which made him a valuable player, but in my opinion, he’ll never overcome that terrible OBP. I can’t look past it. It’s too huge of a negative.
I don’t think most BBWAA voters care. Dawson won’t get in or not get in based on his OBP. But, if we’re talking my opinion, I would never vote for a guy who couldn’t get on base at a decent clip. Murphy could. Raines was even better (I think Raines’ greatness is completely forgotten, and it’s a shame – same with Whittaker and Trammell while we’re on the subject).
Look, Dawson’s OBP is terrible. He’s a player that, philosophically, you are never going to convince me of his value because he is the exact kind of player I believe to be grossly overrated: someone who doesn’t walk but has some power and can keep a good BA. But he was an out machine. The basic job of a hitter is to not make outs. Dawson failed at the most basic level of a hitter. He did a lot of other things well, which made him a valuable player, but in my opinion, he’ll never overcome that terrible OBP. I can’t look past it. It’s too huge of a negative.
I don’t think most BBWAA voters care. Dawson won’t get in or not get in based on his OBP. But, if we’re talking my opinion, I would never vote for a guy who couldn’t get on base at a decent clip. Murphy could. Raines was even better (I think Raines’ greatness is completely forgotten, and it’s a shame – same with Whittaker and Trammell while we’re on the subject).
1
Posted on 8/3/09 at 8:20 am to Baloo
quote:
And Rice, who is in the Hall now, who I believe is inferior to both.
I have to disagree with you here. Just to compare with Murphy, Rice was superior in BA, OBP, SLG (BA and SLG by significant margins.
Rice was in top 5 of MVP voting 6 times (1 win). Murphy in top 5 twice (both wins).
We can argue "comparable" especially when you bring defense into the picture...but "inferior"? I don't think so.
Posted on 8/3/09 at 8:36 am to MStreetTiger
Rice was certainly a better slugger than Murphy or Dawson. But he couldn’t play defense at all and was a liability on the basepaths. Also, aside from one great season late in his career, he was effectively done as a top hitter at age 30. Albert Belle is the player people think Jim Rice is, and I don’t see people clamoring to put him in the Hall.
Murphy and Dawson are also centerfielders, and let’s be honest, that’s a different position than the corner OF slot. Offense isn’t quite as important because of the defensive responsibility. Relative to their position, Dawson and Murphy are better hitters.
Murphy and Dawson are also centerfielders, and let’s be honest, that’s a different position than the corner OF slot. Offense isn’t quite as important because of the defensive responsibility. Relative to their position, Dawson and Murphy are better hitters.
Posted on 8/3/09 at 8:41 am to Baloo
quote:exactly. Power at the corners, speed and defense up the middle. Murph did all of it. I'd like to see him in the hall. maybe the anti-roid backlash will help put him in one day.
Relative to their position, Dawson and Murphy are better hitters.
I remember when Frenchie first came up a few years ago, they were comparing him to Murph and they did have some erie similarities
Posted on 8/3/09 at 8:45 am to Baloo
Baloo,
Does my argument that Murphy was one of the best players of his era hold any weight. I mean, there weren't many better than him from 1980-1988. Those that were at that kind of a level are all in the Hall.
Does my argument that Murphy was one of the best players of his era hold any weight. I mean, there weren't many better than him from 1980-1988. Those that were at that kind of a level are all in the Hall.
Posted on 8/3/09 at 8:48 am to BigBoyTiger
quote:IMO you should only be compared to the players that played when you played. And when you do this, Murph gets in the hall.
Does my argument that Murphy was one of the best players of his era hold any weight
The sad thing is, if he'd have stuck around a couple more years and hit 5 or 6 more homers, he'd be in already. But really, 5 or 6 homers shouldnt be the different of being in or being out
Posted on 8/3/09 at 9:00 am to Pilot Tiger
BTW, if you ground into a fielder's choice and reach base, does that count as "getting on base" for OBP purposes?
Posted on 8/3/09 at 9:02 am to Pilot Tiger
quote:
IMO you should only be compared to the players that played when you played. And when you do this, Murph gets in the hall.
Beautiful. This has been my one selling point in this whole thread.
I miss guys like Murph. He just played the game the right way, hustled, and didn't cause any trouble.
Posted on 8/3/09 at 9:25 am to gizmoflak
quote:no
BTW, if you ground into a fielder's choice and reach base, does that count as "getting on base" for OBP purposes?
Posted on 8/3/09 at 9:35 am to Baloo
quote:
Rice was certainly a better slugger than Murphy or Dawson. But he couldn’t play defense at all and was a liability on the basepaths. Also, aside from one great season late in his career, he was effectively done as a top hitter at age 30. Albert Belle is the player people think Jim Rice is, and I don’t see people clamoring to put him in the Hall.
Murphy and Dawson are also centerfielders, and let’s be honest, that’s a different position than the corner OF slot. Offense isn’t quite as important because of the defensive responsibility. Relative to their position, Dawson and Murphy are better hitters.
Good stuff on the positional issues. I agree with most of what you have to say concerning them.
Let me be clear about my stance on all 3 players. I don't think any of the three belong in the HOF. I think all three are definitely borderline cases....cases falling just short of a (ok...to be fair...my) HOF standard.
This post was edited on 8/3/09 at 9:37 am
Posted on 8/3/09 at 10:17 am to MStreetTiger
You can ONLY compare a guy against his era. In the end, it boils down to your numbers. How many hits? How many homers? What average? As a player drifts further into the past, all that is left is his statistical record. And those numbers mean nothing without context.
Famously, home runs are devalued in the 1990s. A 30 HR hitter in 1968 is more valuable than a 30 HR hitter in 1998. Conversely, a 4.50 ERA is league average in 1998, and would get you sent to AAA in 1968. There was a time when a 300 BA was league average. Not so much anymore. Teams don’t run as much as they used to, so a stolen base threat is more valuable now. Context is everything. The first question you should ask is: how does he measure up to his contemporaries?
MStreet – I essentially agree. All are borderline cases and I think the Hall of Fame loses no credibility leaving them out. Conversely, it loses none by letting them in. They are right on the cusp. I think they let the wrong guy in, but it’s not an outrage. Honestly, Raines is my pet candidate (aside from Blyleven – who I do think is genuinely outrageous is not enshrined).
Famously, home runs are devalued in the 1990s. A 30 HR hitter in 1968 is more valuable than a 30 HR hitter in 1998. Conversely, a 4.50 ERA is league average in 1998, and would get you sent to AAA in 1968. There was a time when a 300 BA was league average. Not so much anymore. Teams don’t run as much as they used to, so a stolen base threat is more valuable now. Context is everything. The first question you should ask is: how does he measure up to his contemporaries?
MStreet – I essentially agree. All are borderline cases and I think the Hall of Fame loses no credibility leaving them out. Conversely, it loses none by letting them in. They are right on the cusp. I think they let the wrong guy in, but it’s not an outrage. Honestly, Raines is my pet candidate (aside from Blyleven – who I do think is genuinely outrageous is not enshrined).
Posted on 8/3/09 at 10:31 am to Baloo
quote:
You can ONLY compare a guy against his era. In the end, it boils down to your numbers. How many hits? How many homers? What average? As a player drifts further into the past, all that is left is his statistical record. And those numbers mean nothing without context.
Famously, home runs are devalued in the 1990s. A 30 HR hitter in 1968 is more valuable than a 30 HR hitter in 1998. Conversely, a 4.50 ERA is league average in 1998, and would get you sent to AAA in 1968. There was a time when a 300 BA was league average. Not so much anymore. Teams don’t run as much as they used to, so a stolen base threat is more valuable now. Context is everything. The first question you should ask is: how does he measure up to his contemporaries?
IMO, Orlando Cepeda was a good illustration of the concept of comparing players within their era. Very, very similar offensive numbers to Rice but for the most part collected in the 60s. He was a borderline case that I believe deserved to get in...barely (and kudos to the Veteran's Committee on that one).
ETA: Admittedly, I just checked the OPS+ numbers...Rice's are better. Oh well.
quote:
MStreet – I essentially agree. All are borderline cases and I think the Hall of Fame loses no credibility leaving them out. Conversely, it loses none by letting them in. They are right on the cusp. I think they let the wrong guy in, but it’s not an outrage. Honestly, Raines is my pet candidate (aside from Blyleven – who I do think is genuinely outrageous is not enshrined).
Agreed on both counts.
I realize that BA is not the end all be all...but with Murphy, I just can't get past a career BA of .265.
This post was edited on 8/3/09 at 10:34 am
Posted on 8/3/09 at 10:41 am to Pilot Tiger
quote:
The sad thing is, if he'd have stuck around a couple more years and hit 5 or 6 more homers, he'd be in already. But really, 5 or 6 homers shouldnt be the different of being in or being out
+1
I always believed that he would be in if he would have hit 400, because of it being a "milestone".
Posted on 8/3/09 at 9:52 pm to Chunkdog
Im actually surprised that there are many who agree with me. I to believe he would be in if he hit 400, plus if he had played for the Yankees or Red Sox we wouldn't be having this debate.... small market bias????
I just feel this is what baseball needs... something good to counter act all this bs about PEDs. Need more guys like Murph!!!!!!
I just feel this is what baseball needs... something good to counter act all this bs about PEDs. Need more guys like Murph!!!!!!
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News