As a baseball fan it is always fun to debate whether and individual player has earned the right to be inducted into the Hall of Fame. A good friend of mine is an Atlanta Braves fan and he believes Dale Murphy belongs in the Hall. I want to see who has the best reason he should and best reason he should not.
2007-01-27 15:14:40 · 14 answers · asked by brandontipsword 1 in Sports ➔ Baseball
1982 National League MVP, 1983 National League MVP, Gold glove after gold glove....760 something games in a row without missing a game, No Steroids, No arrests, No illegitimate children, Role Model for Children around the whole WORLD, No contract disputes, No drug arrests, no nightclub brawls, no media "scandals", no T.O. moments at all, no arguing with the UMP, and on top of that....the most feared hitter in baseball......(oh, and no milking his career like a first balloter Rickey Henderson)
Let's juice him up on steroids and give him some extra at bats on the DH list on the AL (out to pasture years) and see if he stacks up with the others that did the types of things described above.
People don't know what he did, because they didn't watch it like I did. I agree on the points of Dawson, Lee Smith, and the Goose....these are all also top notch deserving players.
2007-01-27 16:50:48 · answer #1 · answered by hedgefundinvesting@yahoo.com 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Murphy played 18 seasons.
His strongest credentials are:
1) 7 time all star (although in18 seasons, not really great in terms of HOF numbers)
2) Two time NL MVP (the fact that he did it back to back really doesn't mean much more than if he'd won two non-back-to-back MVPs... two MVP awards is two MVP awards, regardless if they're back to back).
3) Five Gold Gloves (again, good, but not great)
4) Re: League-leading performances... Led NL in Slugging Pct twice, On-base percentage once, runs scored once, total bases once, home runs twice, RBI twice... OK, but not great
Only one of his ten most similar players is in the HOF, that's Duke Snider, although Snider was actually better than Murphy
He has two other top ten comps (Ron Santo and Gil Hodges) who should be in the HOF, but aren't.
After finishing 5th in the NL west in 1981's strike season, Murphy led the Braves to a division title in 1982, during which he won the first of his two MVP awards. The Braves finished 2nd in 1983, and went downhill from there for the rest of the decade. They also really stunk up the NL West during the 1970s as well, especially the late 70s. Even Braves fans often forget how bad they were before Murphy earned them some respectibility.
Murphy played for the Phillies in 1991 and 1992... his old team, the Braves, won the NL pennant in 1991 and the Phillies won the NL pennant in 1993, the year after Murphy left them.
I think the reason Murphy did not do well in the voting over the years is because, as a young player, he was projected to be a 500 HR man by a lot of people, and an automatic first ballot selection. When he failed to hit even 400 HRs, he was thought of by a lot of writers (voters) as a player who didn't live up to his potential (when all he really did was not live up to the potential that the WRITERS' created for him).
Murphy gave everything he physically had to the game. He played until he had nothing left to give... It just came up a little short of HOF numbers, imo, and I don't think he has a very good chance to get in, even via the Veterans Committee.
2007-01-28 13:43:22 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The reason he thinks Dale Murphy should be in the Hall of Fame is because he is a Braves fan. Although he might belong in the Hall of Fame, numerous other people should be voted in before him. How about Goose Gassage, Andre Dawson, Lee Smith??? Your friend has a little biased opinion, as do I and other fans. However, for the most part, mlb HOF voters are not biased. Dale Murphy only received 50 votes (9.2%). That statistic shows that Murphy is far away from the HOF, and will probably not be voted in anytime soon.
2007-01-27 23:27:30 · answer #3 · answered by Ryan T 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Dale Murphy was a great player for about 6 years. His stats are pretty good and compared to Duke Snider almost identical:
Duke 8 all-stars Murph 7 all-stars
Duke 0 MVP Murph 2 (back to back)
Duke lead league in HR/RBI once Murph twice
Duke 2116 hits Murph 2111
Duke 407 HR Murph 398
Duke 1333 RBI Murph 1266
Both player 18 seasons
Here is where the distance begins:
Duke career avg. .295 Murphy .265
Duke 2 WS champs(In WS 6 times) Murph Zip
The Last and MOST deceiding factor:
Did you see the size of that mole. Holy Moley that thing needed its own jersey.
2007-01-28 12:01:41 · answer #4 · answered by SD_Padres Fan 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If you open the door for murphy there are a lot of other people who have to let in as well. So no, i would not vote for murphy. His career was good but not great. He was great on a terrible Atlanta Braves team. Of course an old Braves fan would think he deserves it, but he was the only good player on the Braves for 10-15 seasons. Here are his stats:
2111 hits
398 home runs
1266 RBIs
.265 career BA
These are good but not great.
2007-01-28 03:53:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I apply the following standard :"Was he among the very best at his position for a substantial period of time?" Murphy is a very close call. Defensively, he had no peer. (OK, maybe Dwight Evans, but I am a Boston fan and VERY biased.) He had some great offensive seasons, but was he at the top for ling enough? I am tempted to say Yes and give him a vote, but don't think I could sway anyone else. Defense is underrated in baseball due to the lack of significant statistics, and I am a big supporter of putting great defensive players in the Hall.
2007-01-28 07:37:48 · answer #6 · answered by dentroll 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Dale Murphy is another of those Don Mattingly picks. Yes he had a great career but was it worthy of Hall of Fame consideration, no. There are others who deserve the Hall more than Murphy like Jim Rice like Goose Goosage like Bert Blyleven etc etc.
2007-01-28 10:13:56 · answer #7 · answered by Oz 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i think he should. no player should be omitted because he played for a bad team. he was considered among the best in the game for about a decade and his numbers are Hall worthy. he's one of the players that i think should be in that aren't yet along w/ rice, blyleven, lee smith, ted simmons, and al oliver. and pete rose and shoeless joe should be put in immediately.
2007-01-28 08:27:11 · answer #8 · answered by the greg 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes the numbers are there and he led in many of all categories in the 80's
2007-01-28 16:34:01 · answer #9 · answered by gman 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no he had a great career in the early years but taled off in his later years . Paul molitor , dave winfield stay consistent for years which is why they got in the hall
2007-01-28 00:01:33 · answer #10 · answered by primet21 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋