I think that Murphy should be in the Hall of Fame but taking an unbiased view I can also see why he isn’t in the HoF. His .265 avg. isn’t that impressive, for a power hitter who played 18 years he only has 398 HR’s. What hurts his chances the most is that after the 1987 season he really tailed off. He hit a career high 44 HR’s in 1987 but after that he only managed to hit 24 in a season twice (1988 and 1990). That wouldn’t be that alarming except that in 1987 he was only 31 years old. There are pros to his getting in also he was a 2 time MVP in 1982 and 1983 he also led the league in HR’s in 1984 and 1985. In the end though he is a border line HoFer.

Completely agree on Alomar. Whenever you thought about the best 2B of the 1990’s you always thought of him.
Kevin Appier was a good player, but while there’s nothing bad about his numbers theres also not anything worthy of the HoF either.
If Baines would have played the field the majority of his career he would get close. The fact that he played DH mostly is going to hurt him. Solid numbers but nothing HoF worthy about them.
The numbers are probably there for Blyleven but the fact that he wasn’t recognized much for awards really hurts him. Only went to the AS game twice, never finished higher then third for the CY.
Burks was a good player who played well outside of Colorado but I still don’t think he gets in.
Dawson deserves to get in this year. He played good defense and hit for good power while having a solid career avg.
Galarraga was a solid player and missing 1999 hurts him. Still though he doesn’t match up with other HoF 1B.
Hentgen, Jackson, and Karros are easy no’s.
Lankford had some solid season’s but wasn’t anything special for more than a couple years at any one thing.
Larkin was a good player but not HoF quality.
Martinez was a very good player and his .312 career avg. is very good. However he played 18 years in Seattle which limited his exposure and was a DH most of his career. It will be close.
Mattingly was a good player in the mid to late 1980’s for the Yankees but when the 80’s left so did his power. Career stats are flawed by a very good 5 year stretch because in the 90’s he was a very average player.
McGriff doesn’t quite have the power numbers but when you throw in the .284 avg. it gets him in.
McGwire has great numbers and when he was chasing Maris’ HR record it brought a lot of good exposure back to MLB. Should be in.
Morris was a solid pitcher but nothing special for his career.
Parker was good but not great. You have to be great to get into the HoF.
I think Raines is a very underapreciated player. He 808 SB’s. The runs thing probably has more to do with nobody being able to hit him.
Reynolds and Segui are easy no’s.
Smith was a full time closer for a long time when that wasn’t very common. By today’s standards he would be good but nothing special.
Trammel, Ventura and Zeile are easy no’s.

Dale Murphy was the premier player of the early to mid 80s. Sure his tenure was short compared to other HOFers. But during his prime there was no better total player.

I do appreciate you giving your reasoning, however. Here are my thoughts:

First, let’s get the easy no’s out of the way—these are the guys that nobody is considering:

Appier, Burks, Hentgen, Jackson, Karros, Lankford, Reynolds, Segui, Ventura, Zeile. These guys probably will all be off the ballot next year.

Now, let’s look at the rest:

Baines: Was an above-average hitter for a long time, logging a solid 120 OPS+ in over 11,000 plate appearances. However, more than half of his career was at DH and he never was a particularly good fielder, nor did he have an era of dominance at all. He’s a pretty easy NO.

Bert Blyleven: Always a tough call. Was a good pitcher for a long time. Logged a 118 ERA+ over almost 5,000 IP. Mostly played for bad teams, which suppressed his win total. He’s borderline, but since he’d be a lock if he played for better teams, I am inclined to bend in his direction and make him a very close YES.

Andre Dawson. He’s the one who deserves the overrated clap, not Edgar Martinez. As a hitter, his overall numbers are incredibly similar to Harold Baines. He logged an OPS+ of 119 over almost 11, 000 plate appearances. If he could have taken a walk in his career, the rest of his numbers were great. But he couldn’t, and logged only a career .323 OBP, below the park adjusted league average for when he played. His peak wasn’t too strong—-he had a few good seasons in a row in the early 80’s and he won the MVP in 1987, but he didn’t deserve it—-winning the MVP despite a good but not MVP-like OPS+ of 130 and finishing 6th in the NL in outs made that year. He was a plus fielder most of his career, but not one of the best of all-time in the field by any means. Yeah, he had some speed, but his SB% was 74%, good but not great. All in all, he just falls short for me so he is a close NO.

Andres Galaraga: Had nice raw numbers at his peak, but they were Coors inflated: he had only two seasons with an OPS+ over 150 and one was in Montreal in 1988. His career OPS+ was 118 over approximately 8900 plate appearances, making his career hitting numbers comparable with Dawson and Baines despite looking better in many ways (mostly Coors induced). Good fielder for most of his career, but a first baseman, not exactly a premium defensive position. Good player, not a hall of famer—-he’s a NO.

Barry Larkin: He is another tough call. Career hitting wise he is similar to the other nos—-a 116 OPS+ over approximately 9,000 plate appearances. However, he has a huge advantage over the others playing the second toughest defensive position, shortstop, and playing it pretty well for a long time. He did have 379 SB’s with a success rate of 83% which is very good. On the negative side, he had almost no peak and only one season with an OPS+ over 150. It is extremely close, but I will say yes basically because being a shortstop puts him over the top; they are just more valuable than OF’s and corner infielders. So he is barely a YES.

Roberto Alomar: The numbers, the lack of a peak, and being a middle infielder make him almost identical to Larkin. (116 OPS+ over 10,400 plate appearances). Played a bit long, but second base is not as tough as SS. If Larkin is a barely yes, so is Alomar, so barely YES.

Edgar Martinez: He is a very tough call for me. He is underrated not overrated—-he won’t get much consideration, but he deserves it. He was a far better hitter than Baines and Dawson, logging a 147 OPS+ over 8,600 plate appearances. His peak was great as well, he logged an OPS+ over 150 for 7 consecutive seasons. (For comparison, Murph’s peak included two over 150 seasons, two 149 seasons, and a 142 season.) So, yes, as a hitter, Martinez deserves it, but won’t get considered because much of his hitting value was in hitting tons of doubles and drawing tons of walks, two very underrated stats. Given that, I really, really want to say yes. However, he was a DH the vast majority of his career and when he played the field he did it so well he became a DH. It makes him half a player. I just can’t pull the trigger on a full DH. So, it is close and painful, but I have to say NO.

Don Mattingly: He’s an interesting case. Like Dawson in that if he could take a walk, he’d be a no-brainer. But he couldn’t. Nevertheless, he had a good peak and finished with a strong 127 OPS+ over 7700 plate appearances. Was a good fielder, but a first baseman. Just not long enough for me and his peak wasn’t so super good to get him over the hump without the long career. So, to me, he’s a NO.

Fred McGriff: A very solid career OPS+ of 134 over 10,174 plate appearances. Actually had a good peak from 1988-1994, right before the juiced stats era that is underappreciated because he played through the juiced era. It is close because while his peak was pretty good, it wasn’t great. Still, he gets just enough to make it over the top for me, so I go barely YES.

Mark McGwire: By the numbers, both career and peak, are easily good enough to get in the Hall. Easily. However, there is the steroids issue. He is just the first of many who will face that question. So, I won’t vote yes or no, I vote PED. I really don’t know what to do with those players now, so I figure McGwire can ride on the ballot until a lot of them are on there and we can do the same to all of them.

Jack Morris: Not even close. Was good for a long time but never that great. A career 105 ERA+ just doesn’t cut it.

Dave Parker: I say NO pretty much for the same reasons as Galaraga and Baines. Good player, just not good enough.

Tim Raines: Raines simply was not one dimensional. He posted a 123 OPS+ over 10,300 plate appearances (great for a leadoff hitter), had a great career on-base percentage of .385. He had a great peak in the 80’s. He also stole a ton of bases with a fantastic SB% of 85%. He played in the shadow of Rickey Henderson, but was the second best leadoff hitter of his time. He had more power than he was given credit for—-he ended up with a career SLG of .425, not great for a power hitter, but good for a leadoff hitter. To me, he makes the cut—-I won’t knock him for playing for bad teams that kept his runs total down (and he did score 1571), he was certainly on base and moving himself over enough to score. Maybe if Dawson didn’t make so many outs, he would have scored more runs. To me, his is a pretty easy YES.

Lee Smith: Tough call. Depends on how valuable you see closers. He was a very good closer for a long time, but still only racked up 1289 IP. To me, the bar for closers is very high (although they can get in), and he just doesn’t make it. If you only pitch one inning at a time, you need to be amazing when you pitch to make the hall. So I say NO.

Alan Trammell: Not as good a hitter as Larkin and otherwise similar. (110 OPS+ over 9400 plate appearances—-remember he played in old Tiger Stadium which was a bandbox). Since Larkin just makes he, Trammell falls on the other side of the line and I say NO.

That leaves: Murph. He is a tricky hall of fame case. Incredible peak which is good because his career numbers aren’t good enough without a great peak. Very good defense in center field plus a period of dominance from 1982-1987. Other than 1980, which was a good year, his other seasons were league average at best. Objectively, it is hard to say no to Mattingly and yes to Murph and in my head, six incredible years just isn’t enough. However, he was the Braves when I was growing up. So my heart says YES, just don’t ask me to justify it. ;)

Note on OPS+ and ERA+: Yes, I understand they are not the get all and end all of stats. However, they are pretty good overall stats for hitters and pitchers and as good a way to compare players across eras and stadiums, which is necessary for HOF purposes. Yes, since the mid-90’s the tops of these numbers have gone up because of dilution of talent due to increased expansion, so I do discount a bit for that era.

I can’t honestly say that Dale Murphy belongs in the Hall of Fame. He does have the MVP award and 398 homers but he just wasn’t dominant for enough time. He was great for awhile but didn’t have a great end of the career. He had 6 dominant seasons of 16 complete seasons.

A guy like Al Oliver doesn’t even get any consideration with 2743 hits (219 homers) a batting title, a .303 career BA and 1326 career runs batted in and you think Murphy should be there with 2111 hits a .265 career batting average and 1266 RBIs. Oliver had 9 dominant seasons of 17 complete seasons.

There should only be 1 member elected into the HOF MAX!

While many years there is no one elected. Too many players that were great-but-not-awesome get in. I think the HOF should be reserved for only the truely elite players, the reserved few the epitimize the game of baseball.

Murphy doesnt have the greatness for my HOF

If you’re going to call Tim Raines one-dimensional I’m going to wonder if you know what the word actually means. When someone has a .385 career OBP as well as stealing over 800 bases at a +80% clip that’s not one-dimensional.

Murphy absolutely belongs, I agree with the ones you said yes to, especially McGriff.
But, Baines, Larkin, Martinez, Mattingly and Raines belong. I think a good argument could be made for Morris and Parker as well.
Baines, Parker and Martinez were also pretty good fielders until their legs went out (Parker had one of the best outfield arms ever)
Mattingly was one of the best defensive 1B of all-time.
Raines was just a great player.
All of them probably would have reached 3000 hits if not for injury or illness.
The only SS better than Larkin in his prime was Ozzie, and Larkin was the superior offensive player.
Morris was also a dominant pitcher for a significant period.

All of them were dominating players for a decade, which should be an important factor.

But when it comes to Murphy, had it not been for the knee injuries, he may have been closer to 500 HR’s

The idea that McGriff, Murphy, and Dawson are hall of famers when Larkin and Raines aren’t is ridiculous. You call Raines one-dimensional, when his career OBP was .385. You bring up unfounded steroid allegations to explain variance while ignoring that Larkin was a defensively skilled shortstop who had a .815 OPS and 9 Silver Sluggers at a difficult fielding position. His OPS was equal to Murphy’s despite playing a more difficult position for a longer time.

The most important things to remember when voting for the hall of fame are, 1) longevity matters – if you post good rates for 18 years you’ve been a pretty great baseball player, 2) position matters – it’s easy to find first baseman with an .880 career OPS; a lot harder to find a short stop with a .815 career OPS, 3) judge the player relative to their peers – did they stick out by being recognized as the best in their league or position?