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.

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.  

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.    

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.  

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.