User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.5125 seconds
46 querie(s) executed
| ||||||||
Baseball Primer Newsblog — The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand Tuesday, December 11, 2012Dale Murphy: Steroid users don’t belong in Hall of Fame (but he does)Yeah, but Heart, Public Enemy, Rush and Donna Summer do? Huh…wuh…
|
Login to submit news.
BookmarksYou must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsNewsblog: Moreno says Angels have had internal talks on new Trout deal
(7 - 3:08am, Feb 20) Last: Davo and his Moose Tacos Newsblog: With Manny Machado’s deal, reports of baseball’s demise might have been exaggerated - The Washington Post (4 - 3:03am, Feb 20) Last: Scott Ross Newsblog: The clock is ticking for pitchers, and there are concerns (25 - 1:07am, Feb 20) Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Newsblog: OT Soccer Thread, v.2019 (237 - 1:06am, Feb 20) Last: AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther Newsblog: OT - 2018-19 NBA thread (All-Star Weekend to Twelfth of Never edition) (60 - 1:00am, Feb 20) Last: tshipman Newsblog: Brewers' plan is to move Moustakas to second base and keep Shaw at third (13 - 12:29am, Feb 20) Last: Dr. Vaux Newsblog: Trevor Bauer Is More Concerned With Being Right Than Being Liked (62 - 11:31pm, Feb 19) Last: Brian C Newsblog: ESPN: Former Dodgers great Don Newcombe dead at 92 (14 - 11:23pm, Feb 19) Last: Baseballs Most Beloved Figure Newsblog: BREAKING: Free agent star Manny Machado has agreed to a deal with the San Diego Padres, league sources tell ESPN. (109 - 11:12pm, Feb 19) Last: bbmck Newsblog: OT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (February 2019) (211 - 10:57pm, Feb 19) Last: Morty Causa Newsblog: With labor tension high, it’s time for me, Dr. Rosenthal, to stage an intervention between MLB and its players (2 - 10:33pm, Feb 19) Last: Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Newsblog: Bradford: Did Red Sox learn their lesson after Jon Lester mess-up? | WEEI (5 - 9:44pm, Feb 19) Last: Walt Davis Newsblog: Baseball’s Shifting Financial Equation: Long-Term Security Over Free Agency - WSJ (1 - 7:43pm, Feb 19) Last: Walt Davis Newsblog: Reds' Joey Votto tries to rebound from subpar season (5 - 7:33pm, Feb 19) Last: bbmck Newsblog: MLBPA's Tony Clark calls Rob Manfred's comments on payroll 'unconstructive and misleading at best' - CBSSports.com (2 - 7:31pm, Feb 19) Last: Dr. Vaux |
|||||||
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2014 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| Page rendered in 0.5125 seconds |
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. JJ1986 Posted: December 11, 2012 at 04:25 PM (#4322236)Frankly, I miss the fact that the Veterans Committee now pretty much doesn't anoint anybody. I'd LOVE for Murphy to get into the HoF via the Veterans Committee, since he "feels" like a Veterans Committee HOFer to me (and I stress TO ME, since this is an intrinsicately subjective point of view).
If Murphy from age 33 forward had put together a string of half a dozen 1.5 - 2 WAR seasons, I'd be a supporter. It is average seasons, not above average, that he lacks.
But murphy's peak isn't comparable to Koufax's, and Koufax is a special case because his career ended suddenly in the middle of his peak.
You're right that Murphy would be a decent candidate if he'd had a bunch of average seasons from 33 on, but then he'd basically be a career candidate.
None of that was Pos's opinion, just the facts. Fact was, Hornsby was in the group of players on 5 or more ballots before being elected.
YMMV and all, but it's virtually irrelevant how many average season an HOFer puts together. The top criteria is how good a player he was and average seasons don't speak to that.
In voting terms, playing ability and playing record are seperate criteria. Average seasons might, one supposes, bear on the latter but the Hall of Famer distinguishes himself based on how good he was at his best.
Maybe without them he'd be merely a vaguely-familiar haircut model.
I don't follow. I mean, yes, it's possible to become a HOFer with only 6-7 above average seasons if you're Sandy Koufax. But what does that have to do with Murphy?
Apparently the skill is genetic.
1. Jeff Bagwell
2. Craig Biggio
3. Barry Bonds
4. Roger Clemens
5. Jack Morris
6. Rafael Palmeiro
7. Mike Piazza
8. Tim Raines
9. Sammy Sosa
10. Alan Trammell
A few things...
1. This was the toughest ballot that I've ever had to consider. There were 18 players that I gave considerable thought to...maybe more
2. My usual disclaimer: I decline the honor of sitting in judgement of those who did, may or may not have used steroids. So I focus on baseball accomplishments
3. That said, I did not vote for Mark McGwire this year for the first time. Why? Because I only get ten and I decided to use that vote to get both Tim Raines and Alan Trammell on my ballot.
4. That may be a trend for me in that I may stop voting for guys who have no chance of getting in regardless of their baseball accomplishments in order to vote for some borderline candidats I deem worthy.
5. Some of you may suggest Rafael Palmeiro fits that thinking. It may in the future but I have covered the Rangers for 25 years. Guilty as charged.
6. I'm voting for Morris to the end. One point that was made by somebody I highly respect is that the voting has been tougher and the bar has become higher for starting pitchers than perhaps sluggers, and that maybe we should reconsider our standards for that position.
7. So no Curt Schilling? Not yet. Because this ballot is so crowded, I decided to hold off on Schilling for now. That will likely change but I used that vote for others.
8. I really really really struggled with Fred McGriff and he is the one player that I am bothered by not voting for. I really looked at him long and hard. I would be interested in others thoughts on McGriff.
That's it from one voter... you can write me at TR.Sullivan@mlb.com
Sure, but it's precisely around the borderline where that breaks down -- in other words, unless you have a very small Hall, your borderline candidates are typically going to have a peak case or career case but not both.
The question isn't whether Murphy is a no-doubter (he's not), it's whether he's a borderliner or not. At this point I don't think I'd vote for Murphy, BTW. But I'll argue against a PA or above-average season count criterion that keeps him out of the consideration set altogether.
Unless you think Sandy Koufax is right on the borderline of HOF worthiness, then it's also possible be a HOFer with 6-7 above average seasons if they're less than Koufax but still excellent. It's not as if Koufax is the only peak candidate in the HOF (or the HOM).
To keep in touch with our community, I would suggest that you occasionally drop in on our annual BBTF Hall of Fame vote, here. One thing to note: nearly all of the early posters on that thread have said that they would have voted for more than 10 candidates if they could have.
That's a hell of a run.
He's got 14 points of OPS+ on Dawson during Dawson's best 8 year run, which basically overlaps.
Selective (best) endpoints on Rice '77-'86, OPS+ of 135, with brutal defense. Murphy was better than Rice and it's barely worthy of conversation.
Rickey '81-'90 (best endpoints): 142 OPS+.
Murphy should be getting more HOF play than he is.
Agreed, and thanks very much to T.R. Sullivan for sharing it along with his thought process.
We've debated Jack Morris endlessly here and I would agree with the majority that he's not a Hall-of-Famer -- hoever, his election wouldn't bother me one bit. (Lifelong Tiger fan; big fan of Morris as a child.) The rest of his ballot seems eminently defensible for someone who would apparently like to vote for 13-14 guys, but can't.
Nice work on the Vet's Committee T.R.
Bah, I hate this line of reasoning. It's the kind of nonsense that leads to things like Puckett in the HOF. Murphy suffered a career destroying injury, just the same as Koufax. He didn't quit, but tried to play through it. However, he wasn't the same. The reality is that he had a down 1988 at 32, had to have knee surgery in the off-season and then did nothing for the rest of his career. Is he supposed to somehow have been a better candidate if the knee injury had forced him to retire right then and there? Of course not; that's absurd.
Both Murphy and Koufax had their careers ruined by injury. Koufax is in and Murphy is not because Koufax was better, not because one deserve "early retirement credit."
Agree with all except Morris.
I think you have to take the only iterations of WAR with a pretty big grain of salt because the D numbers just aren't sound enough. Murphy's case looks a lot better if you assume his gold gloves are legit and give him appropriate dWAR during those years. That's be generous, of course, but the case could be made.
My only passion for Cooperstown would be for them to require all HOF voters to both be statistically competent and to abide by the printed selection criteria. Barring that, to Hell with it.
I suppose this is part of the strategic voting, where he wants to try to get Morris in on his last year of eligability. I'd agree with that if I thought Morris was actually a HOFer ;).
But Bonds and Clemens makes this a really good ballot
LOLWUT
This is not how the voters think, though.
Murphy through age 32 is very comparable to Dave Winfield, but with MVPs. After age 32, Winfield adds 5500 PA and 16 WAR, Murphy zilch. As a result, Winfield reaches a bunch of milestones, Murphy no. If Murphy could have had three-quarters of Winfield's tail, he'd have had 460-480 non-sillyball homers, almost 1500 RBI, and two MVPs; he would have been in 10 years ago.
And I don't think the voters are wrong. Average seasons have a lot of value, and a player who has 6-8 excellent seasons and 6-8 average seasons is a lot more valuable and a more worthy HOFer than a player with just the peak.
Bah, I hate this line of reasoning. It's the kind of nonsense that leads to things like Puckett in the HOF. Murphy suffered a career destroying injury, just the same as Koufax. He didn't quit, but tried to play through it. However, he wasn't the same. The reality is that he had a down 1988 at 32, had to have knee surgery in the off-season and then did nothing for the rest of his career. Is he supposed to somehow have been a better candidate if the knee injury had forced him to retire right then and there? Of course not; that's absurd.
Both Murphy and Koufax had their careers ruined by injury. Koufax is in and Murphy is not because Koufax was better, not because one deserve "early retirement credit."
I don't really disagree with you, and you're right that Koufax is in *mostly* because he was better than Murphy. But I meant that he's a "special case" from the writers' perspective. I'm sure the writers gave him some extra credit because he had a compelling story, just like Puckett.
But credit where it's due (and a lot of it), and T.R., thanks for sharing.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_CF.shtml
Winfield 1975-1984 (9 years) - 38.7 WAR
Murphy 1980-1988 (9 years) - 42.8 WAR.
Murphy adds literally nothing outside of those 8 years, -0.2 WAR. Winfield adds a bunch, but aside form a 5.2, it's nothing to get excited about in any one season: 3.8, 3.2, 2.8, 2.6, 1.9, 1.5, ...
Winfield had Murphy's prime*, and then a bunch of average to slightly above average seasons, and sailed into the Hall in his first go.
*Put the 5.2 WAR from 1988 into prime, and you have Winfield at 43.9 over 10 years to Murphy's 42.8 over 9.
Of course, though, those numbers are held down by the fact that in his prime while he was winning gold gloves, TZ has him repeatedly verging on -20 defense. I'm not sure I buy that, and again the older defensive data aren't as reliable (and Murphy's in particular are bizarre, since his numbers are way higher after he lost his knees). If you believe he was actually a good defender and credit him at something conservative like +5 in each of his gold glove years, then he would shoot up to 8th on the WAR7 list, after Snider and before Jones.
Now, clearly that's generous to Murphy, and plenty of people have won GGs without deserving them, but it's at least a plausible narrative.
#51 -- Perhaps its my age, but to me it seems like just yesterday that he won the ROY. I can't believe he's already retired.
Giving him "good" defensive numbers is a stretch. If you just remove his defensive WAR, he only moves up a spot or two on the WAR7 list.
Given that his candidacy is built on peak, and then we have to massage the numbers to make his peak look good, tends to support that he doesn't belong in the HOF.
Add to this the problem that there are 20 guys on the ballot who deserve and/or will recieve a lot of close attention. This will mean a lot of voters leaving off people they might like to vote for, and also the distortions of strategic voting -- "If I don't vote for McGriff he might fall off the ballot, so I'll leave off Sosa even though I think he deserves it more." I can't imagine there has ever been a ballot on which I would feel less confident about my vote.
Gold Gloves? Very weak. MVP's, you already pointed out the flaw in them. 140 OPS+ over an 8 year prime? Meh. Even during your handpicked time period it was 8th in baseball and he was 7th in WAR for the same period. I guess it's not bad, but if you look at era, rather than solely his prime, you start to see so many other OF who are more representative of the HOF than Murphy.
And this is the issue. To make him look even somewhat reasonable you have to compare him to two borderline, at best, candidates. But really comparing him to Henderson is absurd.
It probably seemed logical when there were 16 teams and the history of the game was much shorter. After the first couple of inductions there wasn't a likelihood that there would be ten worthwhile players. That has changed over the years with expansion and many more decades of the game.
I think it has virtually no impact. Voters are voting for fewer candidates each year. I have never seen any report but the math suggests that the number of people maxing out the ballot is so low as to be meaningless.
Actually, this might be the first time ever where the ballot limit could keep a player from enshrinement. It's possible that Morris (or Biggio) could get squeezed off a handful of full ballots and keep them from their appointed 75 percent.
But until now, I doubt it's ever directly kept a guy from getting elected, and probably not indirectly either.
The answer is basically tied with Cesar Cedeno as the 11th best. Well behind Jimmy Wynn.
It's not a compelling case since he has so little value outside of his peak.
Right. Supposing he were average on D during his prime, that would net him about a win and a half and put him about even with Beltran. That squares with my impression that he's a "no"if his D was indeed terrible, and that to get to a "maybe" he needs the case that his defense was at least average during his prime.
You need to read Dag Nabbit's series on the hof (if you haven't already) and it basically does agree with that premise.
The big issue from this year's ballot will be the players who miss the 5% threshold dropping off. I don't think it will matter for eventual election of the big guns, but several good candidates are going to miss 5% this year unless I'm completely misjudging it.
I don't really think it is about massaging the numbers. I was just giving them to flesh out the premise. The point is that his peak candidacy is all about defense. If you think he was a plus CF (which many people thought at the time, and presumable any booster still does), then he's got an above average HOF peak. If you think that he was average or below, then he's just another next-tier guy.
I'm not saying we should just go "Gold Gloves = plus every year," but I do think people are assuming that historical Rfield numbers are much more reliable than they really are (and this doesn't just apply to Murphy). Do you really think Murphy had more defensive value as a no-knee RF than when he was winning GGs in CF?
I think you are underselling that a bit. Murphy won 5 straight GGs from 82-86. His Rfield for those years is -43. Giving him 0 to put him at average, that's ~4 wins. Tacking on 4 wins to his WAR7 puts him around Richie Ashburn at 9 or 10.
Again, mostly just playing devil's advocate, and I'm not saying that you have to accept all that as fact; but if you assume he had average defense during those years, he's got a very good peak. If you think he deserved those gold gloves (which, again, I'm assuming any Murphy booster does), he's got a great peak.
He can still be much better than he's given credit for, and then still not really be close.
This overstates it a bit in the other direction.
On BB-Ref, his top 7 oWAR years are, in descending order, '85, '83, '87, '84, '82, '80, '86. His RField for those years is -19. Average-fielding Murphy's WAR7 would go up by about 2. Your -43 excludes his '80 and '87 seasons, but doing that would cost him offensively in oWAR (how much depends on which years you substitute). The point is, you're zeroing out the negative RField seasons and keeping positive ones, which would correspond to Murphy being an *above*-average fielder during his top 7 seasons.
"I made enough birdies to win. I just didn't make enough pars." Wish I could remember who said that and which tournament he'd just lost.
Suppose they go conservative and raise it only to 15. This would have a couple of immediate psychological effects on the electorate:
--Raising the limit sends the clear message that voters should be voting for more players.
--A "high standards" voter can still feel that their ballot is staying "exclusive" even if they put 12 names down, because they're not maxing it out.
As Joe said, "several good candidates are going to miss 5%" if the limit stays at ten.
You can say that the ten-man limit "has virtually no impact" - until it does. It's one of those old, anachronistic laws that sits on the books until general awareness is made of its potentially pernicious effects. The time is nigh; Ms. Forbes Clark, tear down this wall.
1987 was Murphy's first year as a Right Fielder. In 1986, he was a gold glove winning CF, but has a -17 on BRef's RField and had been -21 in '85 when he also won a GG. In 1987 as a RF rather than CF, his RField was +11 (with a -7 positional adjustment). I can't recall anything in Murphy's particular skill-set that would have made him uniquely well situated to play RF rather than CF. The latter score, combined with the reputational record, makes me question the former.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main