Talking Chop: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: World Soccer Digest for Soccer Fans!

80's Hall of Famers

As most of us would agree, Dale Murphy belongs in the Hall of Fame. For the decade of the 1980's he was as good as it got. If I remember correctly, he was 2nd in some voting for best National League player in the 1980's behind Mike Schmidt. If you are the 2nd best player in the league for a decade, you should be in there. This brings me to my original point. It seems that players who played the majority of their careers during the 80's get no respect. Very few have been elected to the Hall of Fame. It doesn't make sense to me because neither position players nor pitchers are making it in. Any ideas on why?

0 recs  |  Comment 9 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Murphy's not a Hall of Famer
because his numbers just don't add up. His prime was very good but not great, and he didn't make up for it by flaming out at 32. His peak WARP3 was 61.2, which is in the ballpark for HOF outfielders, but his career WARP3 was only 85, which isn't even close (median for HOF CF is 113.4, higher for corner outfielders). Add to that he was significantly aided by the Launching Pad -- he hit .250/.324/.440 with 181 HR on the road. And he was a very poor defensive player, notwithstanding the Gold Gloves he somehow won -- -61 FRAA career, which is quite bad.

I like Dale as much as anyone, but Braves fandom shouldn't get in the way of the facts. There were many players in the '80s better than Murphy -- including Raines, Rice, Dawson, and Trammell. And that's just looking at the new HOF ballot.

by DwightSmithPinchHits on Dec 27, 2007 3:26 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

Agreed W/ You DwightSmith...
MurphyHOF, I think you and I might have had a friendly little debate on this during the season. I loved Murph, too, but I don't know.  I won't repeat DwightSmith's numbers but they give a good argument against.  He also struck out an extraordinary amount of times.  i don't know how much but if I'm not mistaken he could be top twenty or so all time.  And the last years - a good amount - of his career he really played like an average player.  And he played
on some dreadful teams which - although some think it's a plus - I don't.

All that said, with the reemergence of the steroid/hgh situation, the timing might be right for a guy like Murph.  He certainly played by the rules and got lost in the ridiculous mid-80's 'roid stuff.  One thing we have learned recently is that 'roids don't just give a player an 'edge', but they can literally be somebody's only strength.  Canseco would not be in the major leagues, EVER, w/out steroids and that's a fact. Giambi, too. And with Maguire, Clemens, Bonds, etc on the ropes,maybe the voters would like to celebrate a guy like Murphy, simply because he had very good numbers and played the game with honor.  Cheers.  

by finchy on Dec 27, 2007 3:42 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

I agree except
where do you get the idea or the "fact" that Canseco and Giambi would not be in the major leagues????  Yes, steroids made them big, but steroids didn't help them hit a 95mph fastball. It takes a special talent to turn a fastball like that around, so I would have to say that these guys would definitely been major leaguers, but maybe not great ones.

But on your other points I agree, Murph might benefit from the steroid era and be celebrated by the HOF.  I still don't see him getting enough votes to get in, but I certainly see the number of votes rising quite a bit.

by whunt13 on Dec 27, 2007 6:48 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

clarification
I will readily agree that I am biased, as Murphy was my favorite player as a kid. Statistically, you are right, he does not necessarily belong. My real point, as shown in the post subject, is that he and other "best players of the era" seem to get little respect from Hall of Fame voters.

It seems hipocritical to me. It was not a great offensive era, so the offensive players haven't gotten in. A number of pitchers did. If that many pitchers got in, then it must have been a pitchers era, which would bring the numbers down of the hitters. If not a pitchers era, then certainly it has to be looked at as a small ball era with all the stolen bases and not a power era. The travesty is that the hitters numbers from the 80's are looked at with disdain because they are compared with the numbers of the last two decades. The recent numbers were earned in an unfair way, for the most part.

My point is that the players of the 80's should be judged on how well they did against the players of their era, not recent players. If they were looked at this way, players like Murph would definitely be getting more than 10% of Hall of Fame votes. Also, guys like Goose Gossage, Andre Dawson, etc. would have been in already.

Agree or disagree?

by MurphyHOF on Dec 27, 2007 10:50 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I agree the 80s are a bit overlooked, but...
Murphy didn't dominate. He was a very good player, and being on the HOF ballot for as long as he has been indicates that. But he simply wasn't a dominant player in the era.

The '80s are for whatever reason a poorly evaluated decade. No 50-homer seasons, and if you ask 10 folks who the best pitcher of the decade is, you'd get 10 different replies. The fact that Blyleven isn't in the Hall is a real travesty.

I agree Gossage should be in, I bet he will get in this year, in fact.

Maybe Murph should be faring better, I'm not sure. I don't really think of a guy as "he deserves 10% of the vote, he deserves 20%, 30%," whatever. I just weigh who should get in and who shouldn't, and while Murphy was very, very good, I don't think he has a real case to be in the Hall. Like I said, I think Rice and Dawson were better, but I don't think they should be in, either.

by DwightSmithPinchHits on Dec 27, 2007 11:29 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

whunt...
Of course I don't know that it's a fact they wouldn't be, just my opinion and perhaps an exaggerated one because I'm not a fan of them.  One thing you said, though, has been something that has been bothering me for years and it was promulgated by Maguire over and over, when he said exactly what you did: that steroids can't help players hit a 95 mph fastball.  Respectfully,  I think you're wrong about that and I think that it's a gigantic myth that is slowly, finally being busted.  Steroids make people more aggressive, more focused, more confident, makes their bat faster and many other things.  These actually are facts.  It's not just about size and strength.  Just a minor example w/ Giambi who I mentioned earlier:  Remember 2 seasons ago when Giambi came back and was hitting about .210 or so?  he complained that he was sluggish, felt weak, and felt like he was swinging uphill (these are not bright things to say when you're being accused of juicing) then in august, magically, he hit, like, 15 or 16 or 17  Homeruns - IN ONE MONTH. Yeah, maybe he was injured and struggling and slumping and found his swing but Mantle never even hit like that in a month.  It's obvious he went back to something and his average skyrocketed as well.  He's a junkie, in my opinion.  This says nothing of the countless skinny middle infielders who for ten years were hitting 20+ HR's a year and, laughable, many opposite field.  Guys who would hit 3 or 4 in a year.  My favorite still is Brady Anderson.  What were his HR #'s in successive years?  12, 17, 51, 12, 13 (I'm guessing but something like that)  I mean, that's just a joke, a mockery of the game.  I think Canseco and Giambi would be like...  Ozzie Canseco and Jeromy Giambi.    

by finchy on Dec 27, 2007 7:43 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

I agree MurphyHOF...
with most of that.  the eighties got 'roided out, though, starting in what, '87, '88, '89?  The point is that in the five year wait after retirement for these guys you mentioned the entire game changed.  There really wasn't the time or the knowledge of what was happening (or the admitance, I should say) to make the case you make.  And like DwightSmith, I agree that Rice, Dawson, Raines...  were better than Murphy, and I don't think Rice and Dawson should get in.  And again, I think players who who play on crap teams for their careers really have to put up enormous numbers to get in.  Murphy's teams - save for a couple - were just awful.  I was a fan then, too, so I know how brutal it was.  He was a very good player on bad teams.  That's not enough.  The sad thing is the destruction of the game that Maguire, Bonds, Sosa, Canseco, Palmeiro, and of course Clemens has caused.  They bastardized numbers forever.  Giambi an MVP?  Absurd.  But his numbers were huge.  Is Giambi better than Murphy?  Doubt it.  Now it's hard to look back on the 80's and give breaks to these on the bubble guys in the small ball era when in the same era the numbers from lesser players, Canseco, etc, were getting inflated.  Deserving or not, Murphy, Dawson, etc. really are victims of this.  

by finchy on Dec 28, 2007 12:01 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

Reply to This
is your friend.

by DwightSmithPinchHits on Dec 28, 2007 1:08 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Upon further review
I did some research of players in the Hall of Fame. Taking into account number of decades that players are eligible from (appox. 11) and the number of players in the Hall (198), that means that 8-10 percent of all players in the Hall of Fame should have played the bulk of their career during one of those decades (I included pre-1900 as one decade). As I counted, there are 20 players (give or take a couple) that played a majority of their careers in the 80's, or they played virtutually that entire decade along with another (70's + 80's--Steve Carlton). There are some that overlap. Anyway, that means about 10% of the players in the Hall of Fame are from that era, which is about right historically. This tells me that I may have been mistaken in believing that players from the 80's get a lack of respect. I think my initial belief still stems from the numbers that steriod era players put up that will historically get them in. Based on historical numbers alone, way more than 10% of the players in the Hall should come from the steriod era. Only time will tell if this holds true.

by MurphyHOF on Dec 31, 2007 1:23 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Atlanta Braves.
Start posting about the Braves »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Dsc01731_small
Brian McCann Charity Softball Game; Andruw Jones wants his job back
Small
Early November Fresh Rosterbation

Recent FanPosts

Marmotte_2008_078_small
Adam Laroche should be signed
Small
Bullpen
Small
Bring back my boy AJ
Small
Freddie Freeman
Small
Minor League Free Agents
Dave_avatar_beach_small
Photos of Gwinnett Braves Infielders from 2009 - Inaugural Season
Small
Could Miguel Cabrera be had?
Small
Arizona Fall League Pics
Small
We're Not Signing An Outfielder

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Gondeee_small gondeee

Authors

My_hair_is_a_bird-257x300_small yondaime4

Dsc01731_small royhobbs

Tc_small cbwilk