Man, my heart goes out to Murph. It's really tough to conjure a persuasive HoF argument out of his career, but he was a hell of a player for a few years.

Is it that tough an argument? He's got a hell of a peak, was an all around player more in line with Dawson than Rice (speed and defense) and his career length and numbers seem to fit in with other centerfielders. I'm not saying he belongs but his traditional numbers and the way he was perceived during his career make him a guy that the lack of support has always been surprisng to me.

Is it that tough an argument? He's got a hell of a peak, was an all around player more in line with Dawson than Rice (speed and defense) and his career length and numbers seem to fit in with other centerfielders.

If Bagwell and Bonds are going to be disqualified for "immoral behavior" then an honest voter would give Murph the "best human being to ever play the game" bonus too.

If Bagwell and Bonds are going to be disqualified for "immoral behavior"

There is no evidence yet that Bagwell is being disqualified. Can we stop that please. He had a very healthy debut; one that always leads to eventual election.

Talk about McGwire and Palmeiro if you want to use that schtick.

I think he is hurt by the fact that his numbers are below the 90s/00s guys. His 398 career HR looked a lot better when he retired in 1993 than they did when he came on the ballot for the first time in 1999.

There is no evidence yet that Bagwell is being disqualified. Can we stop that please.

Have we been dreaming all of those columns from writers, explicitly linking Bagwell to steroid suspicions while voting "no"?

I give Murphy a lot of credit for not going the grandstanding, chest-thumping, self-congratulating route that other, less qualified candidates have gone in the past. From everything I've read, he seems like he's rather humble about the entire situation.

Just put him in.

I've reached the point with Murhpy where I'm just at the point of "I really like this guy and that erases the margin of maybe."

Nobody's talking about the fact that he listens to Wilco?

Am I on the right site?

Have we been dreaming all of those columns from writers, explicitly linking Bagwell to steroid suspicions while voting "no"?

What is that, five guys? Ten?

And still, he almost doubled McGwire first time out. If he rises as projected this year, it's hard to see him kept out; even if he has to outwait the deluge.

My bet is he goes in with Biggio. Old writers love a good storyline.

Old writers love a good storyline.

All writers love a good storyline. It's what makes them writers. If you don't love a good storyline, you're not a writer. You're a stenographer.

Nobody's talking about the fact that he listens to Wilco?

Am I on the right site?

All the music lovers on on the Bill James thread.

Nobody's talking about the fact that he listens to Wilco?

I'm pretty sure no one that Dave O'Brien talks to regularly has failed to receive Wilco box sets as gifts at some point or other.

And still, he almost doubled McGwire first time out. If he rises as projected this year, it's hard to see him kept out; even if he has to outwait the deluge.

If he's made to wait, it's not "shtick." How does an electoral advantage for "we think you maybe might've used" over "we're totally sure you used" demonstrate that Bagwell is on the classic, well-worn, time-honored path to election? We're going to see that that path has been blown up.

in 1987 Murphy at age 31 hit .295/.417/.580
in 1988 Murphy at age 32 hit .226/.313/.421
in 1989 Murphy at age 33 hit .228/.306/.361

yikes

There was a steep drop in league offensive levels from 1987 to 1988/89 (due to monkeying with the strike zone), but still, yikes

his dead cat bounce got him back up to .245/.318/.417 in 1990 and .252/.309/.415 in 1991

George Foster at 32 hit .295/.373/.519, at 33 he hit .247/.309/.367, followed by .247/.309/.367, his dead cat bounce phase took him all the way to .263/.331/.460 at age 36.

to paraphrase what Bill James once said, player performance tends to drop off steeply after about ages 31-33.
It's not that EVERY player drops off, some don't until later, some have long gentle declines- and some cliff dive and don't climb back up-

Murphy cliffed and that was that. Looking at Murph's 10 BBREF comps you see that he had a 132 OPS+ through age 31, his comps averaged 130 and ranged from 117 (Beltran) to 150 (Reggie)

Post age 31 his comps averaged 122- if he'd done that, lost 8 OPS+ points, he'd likely in the HOF, he didn't, he put up a 96, the next worse is Shawn Green with 104- Green had injury and surgery that sapped his power- if Murphy had something specific impede his performance I'm not sure I've heard it.

(Foster had a 139 OPS+ through age 32, his BBREF comps put up a 118 after age 32 (down from 129), Foster had a 102

If he's made to wait, it's not "shtick." How does an electoral advantage for "we think you maybe might've used" over "we're totally sure you used" demonstrate that Bagwell is on the classic, well-worn, time-honored path to election? We're going to see that that path has been blown up.

Historically players with Bagwell's profile (not clear no-doubters by traditional stats) are not elected immediately. If you don't know WAR, Bagwell is not a no brainer at all. Going by BA/HR/RBI, MVPs and AS games, his career is light.

If he sticks at 40%, you may be right. But the early returns don't suggest that. They suggest a perfectly normal HoF patch for a guy lacking a "hook".

Murphy cliffed and that was that. Looking at Murph's 10 BBREF comps you see that he had a 132 OPS+ through age 31, his comps averaged 130 and ranged from 117 (Beltran) to 150 (Reggie)
Post age 31 his comps averaged 122- he put up a 96, the next worse is Shawn Green with 104-

other notable cliffers:
Rocky Colavito 135-->101 (pre/post age 32)

and the cliffiest of all, Robbie Alomar 121-->84 (pre/post age 33)

and the cliffiest of all, Robbie Alomar 121-->84 (pre/post age 33)

Ed Delahanty says "Hi"

...what too soon?

Addie Joss also coughs weakly and mutters a muted hello.

Green had injury and surgery that sapped his power- if Murphy had something specific impede his performance I'm not sure I've heard it.

Murphy screwed up his knee during a spring training game, IIRC, and his career plummeted from there.

Green had injury and surgery that sapped his power- if Murphy had something specific impede his performance I'm not sure I've heard it.

Knee surgery, 1989. He was already trending down, and had lost a second on his bat speed. He was always dead meat on hard breaking stuff away - Andruw-esque if not Francoeur-esque - and when he lost the knee he lost any chance he had of cheating and driving balls.

Injury happened in the off-season, playing with his horde of kids, apparently.

Another article.

Murphy underwent arthroscopic surgery last Thursday on a left knee that had been operated on last November, drained three times in spring training and flushed a month ago. After the latest procedure by Braves team orthopedist Joseph Chandler, the doctor talked about unusually rapid degeneration of the knee.

"I don't want to downplay this," said Murphy, on the disabled list for the second time this season. "It's bone on bone. It's arthritis and I know that doesn't sound good.

I always like Murphy and I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.

I tend to think of Murphy as having a short career, but it wasn't: 2180 games played, 9040 plate appearances. Here's a small but interesting point. Carlos Beltran played in 1768 games, with 7730 plate appearances. Both have an OPS+ of 121. Murphy, however, has 5 fewer oWAR, according to BBRef. A lot of that, according to BBRef, is baserunning. Murphy was basically a wash on the bases, whereas Beltran gets an 8.6 win bump from his dashing abilities on the basepaths. bWAR also has Murphy as a -5 win defender for his career, all of that coming in his age 28-30 seasons; Beltran picks up about 7 wins in the field. That's pretty much the difference between them, well, that and Murphy playing almost half his career at other than CF, while that won't be possible for Beltran unless he sticks around until he's 45 years old.

I love the conceit of this story that Wilco is a "hip current band."

I love the conceit of this story that Wilco is a "hip current band."

Hip is a relative term. Hip to a 60 year old Mormon...

I used to constantly get Wilco and the Red House Painters confused.

I used to constantly get Wilco and the Red House Painters confused.

How could that ever happen?

How could that ever happen?

Their names sound like companies you would hear on late night tv commercials? (I have no idea who either of those two groups are, I imagine one is probably some watered down version of wheezer and the other is a watered down version of Bush?---just guessing)

a watered down version of Bush

Rick Perry's in a band??

the other is a watered down version of Bush?---just guessing)

I didn't know you could get a watered-down version of a waterered-down Nirvana.

And no, neither is either of those things.

I didn't know you could get a watered-down version of a waterered-down Nirvana.

And no, neither is either of those things.

As a long-time lurker on the music threads but never a poster, let me say that the musical tastes of this board are extremely odd. If a played out, past their prime band suddenly had a hip new copycat, who then became played out and past their prime, BBTF would love them.

And the Mets would then hire him. And his name would be J. P. Ricciardi.

As a long-time lurker on the music threads but never a poster, let me say that the musical tastes of this board are extremely odd. If a played out, past their prime band suddenly had a hip new copycat, who then became played out and past their prime, BBTF would love them.

I've always thought of the tastes here to either be beholden to the popular oldies(prior to 1975) or to follow music that has never seen radio airplay by a station capable of reaching beyond 5 miles.

I've always thought of the tastes here to either be beholden to the popular oldies(prior to 1975) or to follow music that has never seen radio airplay by a station capable of reaching beyond 5 miles.

I listen to music that is new and relevant to the current world. I don't listen to music that is pushed via pay-for-play radio contracts. How is that hard? Certainly it's impossible that Wilco, of all bands, is driving this discussion, isn't it? How deeply embedded in the concrete must one's head be to have not heard of, if not heard, Wilco?!

Certainly it's impossible that Wilco, of all bands, is driving this discussion, isn't it? How deeply embedded in the concrete must one's head be to have not heard of, if not heard, Wilco?!

All I was pointing out is that the tastes I've seen here has been pretty standard hipster fare, or traditional classic with a dissenting vote once in a while. The more popular it is and the more current it is, the more likely it won't be appreciated around here. Basically if the band is still together, under 30 and has gone multiple platinum, there is very little likliedhood bbtf is going to like it. If they are dead, or should be dead, or are old enough to have teenage kids, or if they have never had a concert with 10,000 fans, then it's very likely that BBTF will like it.

All I was pointing out is that the tastes I've seen here has been pretty standard hipster fare, or traditional classic with a dissenting vote once in a while. The more popular it is and the more current it is, the more likely it won't be appreciated around here. Basically if the band is still together, under 30 and has gone multiple platinum, there is very little likliedhood bbtf is going to like it. If they are dead, or should be dead, or are old enough to have teenage kids, or if they have never had a concert with 10,000 fans, then it's very likely that BBTF will like it.

The site runs the gamut from Beatlemaniacs and Stones fiends to Springsteen junkies to U2 and REM fans to Pavement and Pearl Jam faithful to people dug into Arcade Fire. What demographic are we missing by your accounts? Not a lot of hip hop discussed on the mainland, but that's a demographic thing more than anything I suspect.

Yeah.

The "don't mention anything other people like" attitude applies more to bbtf beer tastes than its collective music tastes.

FWIW, my favorite bands are Tool and Opeth...

As a long-time lurker on the music threads but never a poster, let me say that the musical tastes of this board are extremely odd. If a played out, past their prime band suddenly had a hip new copycat, who then became played out and past their prime, BBTF would love them.

I'm not really sure how you got that from my post, but OK. I'm one of those types of music fans CFB decries, but I've never gotten into Wilco and Kozelek's stuff is just hit or miss (Carry Me Ohio, for example, is specatular). I was just noting that neither of them sounds anything like Weezer or the thoroughly derivative Bush.

The site runs the gamut from Beatlemaniacs and Stones fiends to Springsteen junkies to U2 and REM fans to Pavement and Pearl Jam faithful to people dug into Arcade Fire.

And some of us realize they all just bow to the Archers, right Sam?

The "don't mention anything other people like" attitude applies more to bbtf beer tastes than its collective music tastes

Budweiser, the king of Beers. I'm also happy Busch the fourth(I think) has founded a new brewery.

I'm one of those types of music fans CFB decries,

Only if you act like Ray and assume your opinion on the matter is all that matters. I decry people who can't enjoy Slaughter or accept other peoples enjoyment of Linkin Park etc. Best new band for me in the past two years is Cage the Elephant(one of maybe ten bands who I went out and bought the CD after hearing a song one time) Arcade Fire is another one of those I just don't get, maybe I need to listen to more, they are just passable, I won't flip them off if I'm hearing them, but that is about it.(heck my friends love Mastodon, and I just don't see it either--) I want catchy lyrics and/or intelligent lyrics, song by a vocalist that I can hear and understand(sorry Smashing Pumpin, Pearl Jam and Nirvana) that has lots of stuff going on in the background, and has very little instrumental time, and is recorded by a professional. Basically what 80% of the music listeners listen to, if you don't worry about the specific genre.

Best new band for me in the past two years is Cage the Elephant

Saw them open for Foo Fighters (who were excellent) earlier this year. They were .... entertaining. Alsways amusing to see a grown man convulsing and rolling around on stage.

Foo Fighters is one of the few bands from the 90's non-taking a shower era, that I truly enjoy. I know they have the stigma of being Nirvana at some point in time, but they managed to break away from that and become something actually enjoyable.(Monkey Wrench alone blows away Nirvana's entire album and a half output)

And some of us realize they all just bow to the Archers, right Sam?

I suppose some of them are worthy of being allowed into the throne room to bow their allegiance to the kings. Others wouldn't make it past the outer gate.

Best new band for me in the past two years is Cage the Elephant... I want catchy lyrics and/or intelligent lyrics, song by a vocalist that I can hear and understand... that has lots of stuff going on in the background, and has very little instrumental time, and is recorded by a professional.

Guitar centric or rhythm centric? Amped or more acoustic/singer-songwriter? I can give you 10 options easy.

Guitar centric or rhythm centric? Amped or more acoustic/singer-songwriter? I can give you 10 options easy.

not sure what you mean. My comment was just to say that I want lyrics, I don't want instrumentals going on for more than 20 second, sure as heck don't want it to be recorded live or sounding like it was recorded using a 30 year old tape recorder, would prefer it to be in about a five minute song, and for it to have a refrain at least twice, if not three times. Also prefer the singer to blend in more with the music than being over the top. And of course for it to receive national radio airplay or at least potentially.

But more importantly, it's not about what I want or what an individual wants, it's about what the masses want, and why they want it, and why half of the crap that Joe Bob at the hipster store is telling you "you have to listen to this man" and then you end up with some crap that burns your ears. (see pretty much every single album a hipster points to you as great by a band that eventtually made it to the big time, before they made it big time...most of them, if not all of them sucked in comparison to the studio release.)

And of course you get people on here who trout the crappier albums as the better album in some attempt to seem more sophisticated than the masses---In Utero is not better than Nevermind, heck In Utero barely qualifies as good--of course maybe I'm bitter because that happened to be the only Nirvana album I bought, and I got ripped off, should have just bought Nevermind, I knew that was a very good/borderline great album.(note:not saying if you like it more that you only like it more in an attempt to appear more sophisticated, just saying that generally speaking the consensus worldwide is that Nevermind was the greater album)

But more importantly, it's not about what I want or what an individual wants, it's about what the masses want

Well, you can believe that if you want. The masses also wanted fascism, so I'm not sure it sells for me.

I'll just blow Sam's mind and say other than seeing them mentioned here I have no knowledge of Wilco.

For what it's worth I'm 41 and my musical tastes are pretty much standard alt rock from the 80s. As a friend of mine describes it, "british weenie pop." Put me on a desert island with the Smiths collection and I'm good for quite awhile.

I'm fine with the fact that I'm out of touch. Between my iPod and XM Radio I really have no need to discover new music.

The site runs the gamut from Beatlemaniacs and Stones fiends to Springsteen junkies to U2 and REM fans

And if you include me, from Peggy Lee to Townes Van Zandt :)

I will cheerfully say that unless some new act has reached the inescapability of Lady Gaga, I don't tend to know who they are, though I actually get out and listen to some local new live music in Texas often enough. I think – just a surmise – that popular music in general has become very decentralized since I was a kid (in the late 1960s). 40+ years ago, there were a few radio stations and one local record store. Sure, there was a huge amount of music, and lots of acts had concert followings, but people talked about the same things (as they also did when there were three TV networks and no VCRs). Nowadays, I think if you get a couple hundred people together you get a couple hundred playlists that don't overlap all that much, and each listmaker convinced they're at the beating heart of things.

Heck, if you get Repoz together you get a couple hundred playlists.

The site runs the gamut from Beatlemaniacs and Stones fiends to Springsteen junkies to U2 and REM fans

And if you include me, from Peggy Lee to Townes Van Zandt :)

Throw in the ol' Yankee Redneck for all your 1920s-1930s musical appreciation. Plus Van Halen, Tom Waits, and opera!

I'll just blow Sam's mind and say other than seeing them mentioned here I have no knowledge of Wilco.

This, gentlemen, is the danger of living your life with your head shoved up Morrissey's arse.

I'd understand if I were lecturing you on Archers or explaining precisely why the Marty Donald was a better songwriter than any Beatle (because he was John AND Paul with better lyricism.) But c'mon. WILCO?! My mother knows about Wilco.