Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Getting Dale Murphy into the Hall of Fame

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Getting Dale Murphy into the Hall of Fame

    Hi!

    I just signed the petition "Dale Murphy and the Hall of Fame: BBWAA Needs to Observe and Honor Their Own Voting Guidelines" on Change.org.

    I'm making this a personal mission. Murphy was my first baseball hero and this is the last time he can be voted into the Hall of Fame.
    I would love to help getting him some justice. I know the team wasn't as good as in other years, but Murphy was amongst the elite of his generation and at the end of the day that should be more than enough to get him into the Hall of Fame.
    Would really appreciate if y'all could sign this petition and pass it along to your friends.

    Here's the link:

    http://www.change.org/petitions/dale...ing-guidelines

    Thanks!

    Luís
    All warfare is based on deception.
    Sun Tzu - Art of war - Chapter One - Laying Plans



  • #2
    I was always a Dale Murphy fan too.

    The problem is that there are lots of guys with Murphy-style numbers who never got voted in. Roger Maris and Gil Hodges were the first two I thought of.
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

    Comment


    • #3
      Composite 162-game average seasons for Murphy, Maris and Hodges...



      Virtually no difference.

      Maris held the single-season homerun mark (61) for nearly 40 years. From 1960-63 he was an All Star, wond two MVP's and a Gold Glove.

      Does Roger Maris Belong in the Hall?

      I think Hodges should have been voted in as a manager, just for taking the Mets from the worst team in baseball to 1969 World Series champions. However, Hodges numbers as a player just don't stack up.

      Examining Gil Hodges’ Hall of Fame case
      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
        Composite 162-game average seasons for Murphy, Maris and Hodges...



        Virtually no difference.

        Maris held the single-season homerun mark (61) for nearly 40 years. From 1960-63 he was an All Star, wond two MVP's and a Gold Glove.

        Does Roger Maris Belong in the Hall?

        I think Hodges should have been voted in as a manager, just for taking the Mets from the worst team in baseball to 1969 World Series champions. However, Hodges numbers as a player just don't stack up.

        Examining Gil Hodges’ Hall of Fame case
        My good Doctor.
        Those numbers look all fine and good. Unfortunately, they completely fail to account for context - what was the league like that each player played in? Was it a high scoring era? Low scoring? Was the player helped by his park, or hurt by it? Etc., etc. What about defense? Was the player dominant at any given time?

        Of the three, Murphy was the best player, Hodges won a WS as a manager, and Maris broke a famous record. All three were terrific fielders but Hodges has the edge there.

        Murphy was clearly the most dominant player at a point in time (Hodges was never the best player on his own team, Maris wasn't either). That is, although Maris won 2 MVPs, he wasn't the most valuable player either year - Mantle was (by quite a bit). Murphy's two were better deserved. Hodges, despite his gaudy numbers never finished higher than 7th in the MVP vote. MVP vote is a very imperfect science. However, a HOF player needs to do much better than Gil Hodges did in my opinion to merit consideration. So I omit him from the discussion.

        Maris was more than a two-year fluke. He was a good player in a few other years, but 2 years doesn't put you in the HOF. Murphy was great, or near, great, for six seasons. That separates him from the others IMO. He's got a better HOF case than does Don Mattingly. He is probably as deserving as Kirby Puckett. But none of those guys are HOFers in my book.

        Bottom line, I have no problem if Murphy gets in, but he wouldn't get my vote.
        Last edited by The Ibis; 10 Dec 12, 19:10.

        Comment


        • #5
          I like Dale Murphy a lot, but I'm not sure he's Hall of Fame material. He was one of my favorite players back in the 80, and he's a class act. He would need over 400 homers to get in in my opinion. His last years in the league also don't seem to have helped his overall numbers. In my opinion a player needs at least 8 solid years to be a Hall of Fame player.

          Comment


          • #6
            Thanks to all for your input. I trully apreciate people different points of view.
            I, for one, have a fealing that HOF should be something more than a question of stats, although, they have to be important to get some solid criteria into it. IMO, the HOF is about legacy and I would like to think about role models. We're selecting people we admire and that we look up to and expect our descendents will too.
            The game as been tainted by inhancing drugs consoption and other issues that take away the purity of stats. I would like when my grandsons "google" some of this heroes we're picking to prosperety can find some that did leave by etic codes and still got impressive results in the game.
            For me Murphy is a lot more than the 2 Gold Gloves and being MVP, he was always a great person in and outside of the ball park. I've argued this before, but if we still love the idea of a Captain America and what he stood for, Murphy is as close to it as we will ever get.
            That been said I reckon that there's a lot of other great guys out there that are not in the HOF ence why I mentioned before that we can't overlook stats.
            Stats and carachter together that's what makes me think that Dale Murphy should be voted in.
            All warfare is based on deception.
            Sun Tzu - Art of war - Chapter One - Laying Plans


            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by The Ibis View Post
              My good Doctor.
              Those numbers look all fine and good. Unfortunately, they completely fail to account for context - what was the league like that each player played in? Was it a high scoring era? Low scoring? Was the player helped by his park, or hurt by it? Etc., etc. What about defense? Was the player dominant at any given time?

              Of the three, Murphy was the best player, Hodges won a WS as a manager, and Maris broke a famous record. All three were terrific fielders but Hodges has the edge there.

              Murphy was clearly the most dominant player at a point in time (Hodges was never the best player on his own team, Maris wasn't either). That is, although Maris won 2 MVPs, he wasn't the most valuable player either year - Mantle was (by quite a bit). Murphy's two were better deserved. Hodges, despite his gaudy numbers never finished higher than 7th in the MVP vote. MVP vote is a very imperfect science. However, a HOF player needs to do much better than Gil Hodges did in my opinion to merit consideration. So I omit him from the discussion.

              Maris was more than a two-year fluke. He was a good player in a few other years, but 2 years doesn't put you in the HOF. Murphy was great, or near, great, for six seasons. That separates him from the others IMO. He's got a better HOF case than does Don Mattingly. He is probably as deserving as Kirby Puckett. But none of those guys are HOFers in my book.

              Bottom line, I have no problem if Murphy gets in, but he wouldn't get my vote.
              I think I'd vote for all three, if I had a vote... Of course, I would also vote in Rusty Staub, Bob Horner and Kent Hrbek.

              If you want to look at the context of Hodges, Maris and Murphy, consider the pitcher's mound...
              The Top Ten Pitchers Of The "Golden Years" and The Raised Mound Era: 1946-1968

              Maris and Hodges averaged 30 HR & 96 RBI primarily during the "Golden Years," with Maris' prime extending a couple of years into the Raised Mound era.

              Neither Maris nor Hodges ever struck out 100 times or more in a season. Although Hodges did lead the league with 99 strike outs in 1951. Murphy topped 100 strike outs 11 times and averaged 130 per 162 game-season.
              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Cap. Teancum View Post
                Thanks to all for your input. I trully apreciate people different points of view.
                I, for one, have a fealing that HOF should be something more than a question of stats, although, they have to be important to get some solid criteria into it. IMO, the HOF is about legacy and I would like to think about role models. We're selecting people we admire and that we look up to and expect our descendents will too.
                The game as been tainted by inhancing drugs consoption and other issues that take away the purity of stats. I would like when my grandsons "google" some of this heroes we're picking to prosperety can find some that did leave by etic codes and still got impressive results in the game.
                For me Murphy is a lot more than the 2 Gold Gloves and being MVP, he was always a great person in and outside of the ball park. I've argued this before, but if we still love the idea of a Captain America and what he stood for, Murphy is as close to it as we will ever get.
                That been said I reckon that there's a lot of other great guys out there that are not in the HOF ence why I mentioned before that we can't overlook stats.
                Stats and carachter together that's what makes me think that Dale Murphy should be voted in.
                Baseball is the "gateway drug" for statistics...
                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                  I think I'd vote for all three, if I had a vote... Of course, I would also vote in Rusty Staub, Bob Horner and Kent Hrbek.
                  What the hell. They were all better than George Kelly and Lloyd Waner.

                  If you want to look at the context of Hodges, Maris and Murphy, consider the pitcher's mound...
                  The Top Ten Pitchers Of The "Golden Years" and The Raised Mound Era: 1946-1968
                  Oh good. Context. Me likes.
                  Maris was "hurt" by the 60s Dead Ball era, and therefore, his numbers look a bit lower. But by the mid-60s, Maris was really winding down due to injuries.

                  Without doing a ton of work, I'd suggest you look at Bill James Win Shares for these guys. Its a nice way of putting players in context and standardizing player value. When James wrote his book, the average Win Shares for an MVP were 33.4. In other words, for a hitter, 20+ Win Shares can be seen as an allstar type season (but deserving allstars would typically be 25+), 30+ Win Shares is a great season, 40+ is an alltime great season.

                  Murphy had six seasons over 28 (maxed out at 33, over 30 four times).
                  Maris went over 30 only twice and had two other seasons at 25, but otherwise never had 20 (In case you're wondering, he maxed out at 36 in 1961, which is a great year. Not nearly as great as what Mantle did: The Mick had 48 in 1961 ... one of the great seasons of all time).
                  Hodges never reached 30 Win Shares (but did have 29, which is nearly the same thing). But he had three other season at 25 or more plus five more at 20 or above.

                  Maris and Hodges averaged 30 HR & 96 RBI primarily during the "Golden Years," with Maris' prime extending a couple of years into the Raised Mound era.
                  Of course, Maris and Hodges saw lots of fastballs. They couldn't really be pitched around given the lineups of the Yankees and Dodgers. On the other hand, Murphy was the guy who was pitched around.

                  Neither Maris nor Hodges ever struck out 100 times or more in a season. Although Hodges did lead the league with 99 strike outs in 1951. Murphy topped 100 strike outs 11 times and averaged 130 per 162 game-season.
                  By the 1970s, people were starting to figure out that strikeouts are not a big deal. They're an out. No more, no less.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by The Ibis View Post
                    What the hell. They were all better than George Kelly and Lloyd Waner.



                    Oh good. Context. Me likes.
                    Maris was "hurt" by the 60s Dead Ball era, and therefore, his numbers look a bit lower. But by the mid-60s, Maris was really winding down due to injuries.

                    Without doing a ton of work, I'd suggest you look at Bill James Win Shares for these guys. Its a nice way of putting players in context and standardizing player value. When James wrote his book, the average Win Shares for an MVP were 33.4. In other words, for a hitter, 20+ Win Shares can be seen as an allstar type season (but deserving allstars would typically be 25+), 30+ Win Shares is a great season, 40+ is an alltime great season.

                    Murphy had six seasons over 28 (maxed out at 33, over 30 four times).
                    Maris went over 30 only twice and had two other seasons at 25, but otherwise never had 20 (In case you're wondering, he maxed out at 36 in 1961, which is a great year. Not nearly as great as what Mantle did: The Mick had 48 in 1961 ... one of the great seasons of all time).
                    Hodges never reached 30 Win Shares (but did have 29, which is nearly the same thing). But he had three other season at 25 or more plus five more at 20 or above.



                    Of course, Maris and Hodges saw lots of fastballs. They couldn't really be pitched around given the lineups of the Yankees and Dodgers. On the other hand, Murphy was the guy who was pitched around.



                    By the 1970s, people were starting to figure out that strikeouts are not a big deal. They're an out. No more, no less.
                    Bill James...
                    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by The Ibis View Post
                      By the 1970s, people were starting to figure out that strikeouts are not a big deal. They're an out. No more, no less.
                      If you have a guy on base with no outs and you strike out it matters and it could decide a game. Strikeouts happen but you have to do something to make the defense work to get you out. A fielder could make an error that is the start of a big inning and decide the game.
                      “When you're in jail, a good friend will be trying to bail you out. A best friend will be in the cell next to you saying, 'Damn, that was fun'.”
                      ― Groucho Marx

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Checkertail20 View Post
                        If you have a guy on base with no outs and you strike out it matters and it could decide a game. Strikeouts happen but you have to do something to make the defense work to get you out. A fielder could make an error that is the start of a big inning and decide the game.
                        Damned straight. Strikeouts are utterly unproductive. Getting a runner over from second to third with less than two outs is productive. A K can't do that.

                        And K's to lead off an inning are the worst of all. Sorry Ibis, but excessive K's are rally-killers: just ask Curtis Granderson.
                        I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Checkertail20 View Post
                          If you have a guy on base with no outs and you strike out it matters and it could decide a game. Strikeouts happen but you have to do something to make the defense work to get you out. A fielder could make an error that is the start of a big inning and decide the game.
                          I'm going to have to join the gang on this one too Ibis. I keep track of productive outs for my team. It helps them to understand that doing something with their AB is a way of helping the team. We also spend a good deal of time learning to hit with two strikes. Now don't get me wrong, I don't freak out if they strike out. It happens. We train our hitters to view two strikes the same as one strike with the exceptiont that they are thinking swing = make contact.
                          "War is sorrowful, but there is one thing infinitely more horrible than the worst horrors of war, and that is the feeling that nothing is worth fighting for..."
                          -- Harper's Weekly, December 31, 1864

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Twitter3 View Post
                            I'm going to have to join the gang on this one too Ibis. I keep track of productive outs for my team. It helps them to understand that doing something with their AB is a way of helping the team. We also spend a good deal of time learning to hit with two strikes. Now don't get me wrong, I don't freak out if they strike out. It happens. We train our hitters to view two strikes the same as one strike with the exceptiont that they are thinking swing = make contact.
                            Do your productive outs include pitch counts? If a guy strikes out after 5 pitches, he had a more productive AB than the guy who ripped the ball down the line on the first pitch, but the fielder made the play.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                              Damned straight. Strikeouts are utterly unproductive. Getting a runner over from second to third with less than two outs is productive. A K can't do that.

                              And K's to lead off an inning are the worst of all. Sorry Ibis, but excessive K's are rally-killers: just ask Curtis Granderson.
                              They are productive or not. Context is everything. Striking out leading off an inning is no worse than popping out. An out is an out. Striking out with no one out but a man on first is better than grounding into a double play.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X