Shouldn't Dale Murphy be in the Hall of Fame? During his 18 year career from 1976-1993, he hit 2,111 hits

Question

398 HR's, 1,266 RBI's and .265 career BA. He was a 2 time MVP - 1982 & 1983, 7 time All Star, and 5 time gold glover. Murphy mostly played outfield for the Braves, but also played for the Phillies and Rockies, he also played catcher and 1B. His number 3 was retired by the Braves, and he was a very clean guy, no drinking, drugs, he's a mormon. Even though he played in parts of 18 seasons, the first 2 and last 2 he barely played any games, so he really only played 14 full seasons. He was dominant during the 80's. His career number are right up there with Hall of Famer Reds Catcher/First Baseman Johnny Bench - 17 year career - 1967-1983 - 2,048 hits, 389 HR's, 1,376 RBI's and .267 lifetime hitter. What got Bench in was the fact he was on the Big Red Machine and won 3 World Series titles vs. none for Murphy, who was on some pretty bad Braves teams. I say vote him in, what do you think? And I think it's great he has been outspoken against steroids and Barry Bonds HR record.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/murphda05.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Murphy

http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/benchjo01.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Bench

Answer 1

I agree that Murph should be in, but don't compare him to Bench! Bench was a career catcher, and arguably the greatest ever at his position. Murphy cannot be spoken of as a catcher on Bench's level! Murph was an outfielder! Those stats look a little more normal when you consider that.

When Bench retired, he was the career HR leader for catchers, wasn't he? And yeah, winning World Series' doesn't hurt!

Answer 2

No. I lived in Houston in the 1980's, and watched a lot of Braves games on cable. When Murphy won the 2nd of his 2 consecutive MVP's in 1983, some joked that he should be the first player in history to win the MVP one year and the Most Improved Player the next year, underlining how weak his MVP credential was. (He hit 36 HR, 109 RBI with 0.281 avg. in 1982 in winning his first MVP, totally unspectacular numbers for MVP's.) The Braves started the season 13-0 in 1982 and created a big fuzz, and along with the dawn of cable TV era and the national broadcast of each game on WTBS, the Braves were the team with the most exposure in the majors (remember they called themselves "America's Team?") thus making Murphy perhaps the most overrated player in that era. As you pointed out in his stats, 398 HR and 0.265 career avg. are a far cry from Hall of Fame standards. The fact that he doesn't smoke or drink is nice, but totally irrelevant. One other shortcoming for him might be the fact that he's led his team to a total of ONE playoff appearance-- getting swept in 3 games by the Cardinals in the 1982 NLCS So, to answer to your question, Dale Murphy was a solid player, and even won 2 MVP's on circumstantial grounds. But he is not a Hall of Famer. Not close.

Answer 3

Unfortunately not.
Murphy probably wasthe best player in the National League from 1980-1987. However from 1988 onward his carrer collapsed. His last 3 years in Atlanta his average was between the .225 to .245 range, which definitely is not elite production, while his homer total dropped from the 35-40 yearly level to the 18-24 yearly level. So in reality once he got to age 32 he got to be a below average player. His final two years he hit much lower than his weight and could not get to the 400 home run level.
Had his carrer had a couple of good years in his final 5 years, he would be in. But since they all were between mediocre and awful, he is not.

Answer 4

What you fail to realize is that Bench was a catcher which is a much more important position that outfielder and that he played in a better pitching era than Murphy. Also your logic of "he is better than one Hall of Famer so he deserves to be in the hall" is faulty. Look up Fred Lindstrom. He made the Hall of Fame, but there are tons of players who have better stats than him who aren't. Do you think that Andre Dawson should be in the Hall of Fame? His stats are like Murphy's: he hit 438 homers and his career batting average is similar. Likewise Dwight and Darrell Evans hit a lot of homers and so did Dave Kingman, but most people agree they are not Hall of Famers.

Answer 5

I agree that he was a very good player, but he is just not worthy of the HOF. His career batting average goes to show that the hits he racked up were more a testament to how long he played, not how good he really was. His home run totals are good, but there are guys that have more home runs than him that aren't in either like Andre Dawson and a few others.

Answer 6

Eh; I evaluate Murf much like I do Dawson and Rice qualitatively -- he'd look good on a plaque and be worthy of it, but the Hall is not suffering for his absence.

Given his vote totals to date, the writers are not likely to think better of him before his eligibility expires after 2013.

Answer 7

Murphy was my second favorite player after George Brett. That said, no, he is not hall of fame. He was really great for about 5 years and just above average after that. Not good enough for long enough.

Answer 8

dale had some very excellent moments! but met none of the criteria to get in,, there are many with better numbers then dale.. i mean a 265 average!!!! come on... as for him talking about barry i put him in the same category as schilling.... doesn't know squat! to summarize, he was very good, not great, and barry is by far a much better player with or without creams .

Answer 9

he carried the Braves for years I think it's sad he had to end his career in Colorado. They should of let him retire in Atlanta

Answer 10

I think so... But then i also think the HOF has very high standards