I've always been a Murphy supporter because his peak (1980 to 1987) was as good as any. For seven of eight years, he was top five in HRs -- the outlier was the strike season (he had 13 HR, #5 had 18). He has two MVPs in that time period and made the All-Star team all but 1981. Over that period, only Mike Schmidt had more HR; only Schmidt, Eddie Murray, and Dave Winfield had more RBI; only Schmidt and George Brett had a higher SLG (min 4k PA).

He also was an ironman, leading the league in games over that period and in games started. Really, for eight years, he was one of the top three players in the majors.

The man played in the "Launching Pad," never carried a team to a pennant. There were lots of guys better in the mid-80s. He is a wonderful guy, but not a Hall of Famer. Rice is Murphy only more so, and not a nice guy.

In response to Martin, with your reasoning, Glen Davis is a hall of famer? Astrodome and NL West Pennant... you can't blame the lack of pennants on Murphy and to say "lots" of players were better than Murphy is a gross and dramatic use of hyperbole on your part. He played on a small market team with the likes of Ozzie Virgil, Andres Thomas, Rick Mahler, and all those other world beaters.

Launching Pad or not, Murphy's OPS+ (a park adjusted stat) over that period compare nicely to Eddie Murray's over the same period:

(Murphy, Murray)
135, 138
100, 156
142, 156
150, 156
149, 156
141, 149
120, 135
156, 120

With the exception, again, of 1981, Murray was only slightly better over that period. And if he was one of the greatest in the game over that era, certainly Dale was as well.

Dale should also get some benefit because he was a center fielder for almost that entire period (he moved to right in 1987), and for winning five gold gloves there.

There's no doubt that Murphy was a great hitter and fielder between 1981 - 87; there's also no doubt that prior to 1981 his hitting was good but unspectacular, and after 1987 he fell off of a cliff offensively. His last 6 years were an embarassment, and can't be ignored in any HoF discussion. I one of those who believe that HoFers should have both good peak and career values, and a lifetime OPS of .815 and 398 career homers over an 18-year career doesn't scream "enshrinement" to me.

Listen, I agree that you need to have a certain level of career production for the HOF, though there is a strong argument that says the HOF is to recognize greatness and therefore a player shouldn't be penalized for failing to tack on a few league-average years at the end. Let's set that aside for a minute. I'm not sure I would vote for Dale Murphy either.

Martin, your talk-radio-level statement probably doesn't deserve a thoughtful response but I'm bored. Hello 1982. I seem to remember that Dale Murphy was the NL MVP that season, and the Braves won their division. But he's less great somehow because of a three-game LCS in which he went 3-11. Right. And it was all his fault the next year when he was also the MVP and the Braves finished 2nd.

Lots of guys were better than Murphy in the mid-1980s? Lots of guys? Like who? The players at the time didn't seem to think so. The numbers don't indicate it either. Other than Mike Schmidt, nobody was clearly a better all-around everyday player than Murphy in the early and mid 80s.

As for Rice, Murphy's offensive stats during his peak periods (leaving aside his superior defense) were about equal to Jim Rice's. Comparing their best 8 consecutive seasons (an arbitrary number admittedly but as good as any), Murphy's average OPS+ was 138 (1980-1987) and Rice's was 137 (1977-83).

Rice was marginally more consistent, but he was also less valuable in the field. You can't argue for one and completely dismiss the other guy.

I have to agree with Matt on this one:

"Lots of guys were better than Murphy in the mid-1980s" is clearly a ridiculous statement.

While the opposing argument does have a few good points, the fact remains that Dale Murphy was one of the top 5 players in baseball during his heyday...an era that lasted almost an entire decade (certainly a lot longer than Glenn Davis' period of excellence...which was another ridiculous statement). Murphy played all facets of the game well, and his baserunning and basestealing skills were also top-notch (he was a 30/30 guy when it actually meant something).

Bottom line: 8 years of dominance is sufficient. If you don't think so, then you need to take several Hall of Famers and boot them out, starting with Sandy Koufax.

First of all, Murphy *did* go to the playoffs, in 1982, so he and Glenn Davis tie on that score; Davis isn't "ahead" of him so that response doesn't really make any sense.

Of course Murphy was a better player than Davis. Murphy was a special player, I can't really deny that. When Murphy stepped into the batter's box in a close game, he had the pitcher's full attention in a way that Glenn Davis never did, there's no real doubt about that. Murph was not some journeyman. He deserved to be a perennial All-Star for about six years.

I personally think that all the Gold Gloves are a little ridiculous, given because he was a good hitter, a good guy, tried hard, did play well etc. Certain guys get in the slot for GGs and stay there a while; that happened to him. But he was slow for a CF and never seemed to me anything approaching stellar. He was good, an asset, not more. He wasn't Garry Maddox with power, and it's a little silly to try to pass him off as that.

As for top 5, was he better than Schmidt? No. Brett? No. Rickey? No. Boggs? No. Yount? No. Gary Carter? No. Dawson? No. Raines? No. Straw? No. Winfield? No. Ripken? No. Murray (as you concede)? No. Baines? ........Maybe.

Listen, I feel your pain. I'm a Yankee fan, and my favorite player during that entire era was Don Mattingly, who has the exact same problems as Murphy over pretty much the same period, and there's just no rational argument for Mattingly either.

the hall elects peter gammons, but GOOSE come on. the hall is shiat

As for top 5, was he better than Schmidt? No. Brett? No. Rickey? No. Boggs? No. Yount? No. Gary Carter? No. Dawson? No. Raines? No. Straw? No. Winfield? No. Ripken? No. Murray (as you concede)? No. Baines?

Schmidt, Brett, and Rickey, I will grant. But the others... Well, his numbers in his peak years are better than theirs, yes. A lot depends upon how much the park helped him. It was a good home run park, but it wasn't Coors Field.

Murphy had the sixth-most win shares in the decade of the eighties. (Henderson, Yount, Schmidt, Murray, Raines. Boggs came up in '83, Brett's best years straddle the decade line -- as do Schmidt's of course.)

I just wrote about Murphy versus Dawson; scroll up from the links above. Dale was clearly a superior hitter to Andre at their respective (near-simultaneous) peaks, unless you think that somehow Fulton County was giving him 40 walks a year. Murphy was the best-hitting centerfielder of the period (except for the years Rickey or Rock were playing center).

I wrote a piece using Win Shares to compare Murphy's career and peaks to other center fielders in the HOF.

(http://journals.aol.com/bads85/ManyGoFewUnderstand/entries/1042)

To briefly sum it up, Murphy compares well to the lower tier Hall of Fame CFers, but there are other centerfielders not in the Hall who are more deserving. Murphy is right at the treshold, which is not exactly a ringing endorsement.

JP,

Where would I go to get def. adjusted OPS on everyone?

Stan,

I just came up with Def. Adj. OPS not long ago after an exhange with David Gassko of The Hardball Times. I suggested it to him as a rough estimate for those who were familiar with OPS, but weren't comfortable with advanced metrics. I've played around with it a bit, but have not run the numbers for everyone yet.

Murphy was slow for a CF??? As a Yankees (and an obvious AL watcher prior to interleague play), I have to ask: did you ever watch him play???

He was 6'5", and had a long stride so he was much quicker than he looked. The dude has a 30 SB season to his credit. Slow people don't steal 30 bases in a season.

as fas as CF'ers alone...I would take R.Henderson....Willie Wilson...A.Dawson/T.Raines..and Kirby P. ahead of Murph....but that's just me....Gwynn started as a CF'er too in the 80's. Murphy is going to have to let time reconcile his career for voters....in time, we know that things and players become more legendary.....D.Murph only hit .266 for his career and is 7th all time in K's and only had 5 years of 90+ rbi....to me, not Hall worthy (yet)....I know he was MVP 2x but that doesn't push him over the top for me.....put Tony Oliva in before him...or even Jim Rice......D.Murph was good...very good...but that's it.

one stat to look at is total bases. historically if you look the person that leads a decade will be voted into the hall of fame. I dont have the stats around me to post but i remember 2 off the top of my head. for the 1990 ken griffey jr lead in total bases and he is a hall of famer. Dale Murphy lead the 80's in total bases. I really dont remeber any earlier than that but I do remember that all of them were hall of famers. I think what has hurt Dale the most was his lack of interest in the hall of fame after he retired. There was one thread about a player playing at an average level and therefore not qualify for being in the hall. Lets look at Samm y Sosa and Barry Bonds. With that criteria both of those players would not be hall of famers. I think that a great player knows when to quit when he does become that average player. Not many players leave in their peak. Its not smart business or career wise. I think that the hall of fame is something that you should be in awe of. Something that just isnt stats but character as well. If you go back to the first class of inductee's you see nothing but characters that will live forever in baseball lore. Each player in the hall has character. This I believe is the reason that Jose Canseco will never make it into the hall (even though his stats say otherwise).
I will say one other thing and thats the notion that because Dale played at the "launching pad" he should have hit more home runs. I look at Todd Helton who is in a similar circumstance. You have to get the pitches to hit. Dale never had any protection around him in the lineup. I love Bob Horner but come on how much help is he? Would you rather throw a fast ball to Dale or Bob? Thats not a fair question. When you get pitched around for a decade the missed home runs add up.

The following is a letter I sent to one of the Hall of Fame voters who did not vote for Dale Murphy. The arguments here against him are unfounded. You are looking at his numbers and letting that define him. You are not looking at the whole picture. I am, by no means, covering it all, myself:

Dear Sir,

Every year I stare at the Hall of Fame ballot in disbelief. Every year one very deserving player (more deserving than most elected each year) is left out of the Hall. That player is Dale Murphy.

I read your article and can now see why you writers are not voting for him. You go strictly by stats (except the important ones). You ACKNOWLEDGE his great accomplishments but then negate them with somewhat misleading "numbers".

Sure, he played in the "Launching Pad", but how many pitches did he see? He had NO protection in the batting order. Nobody pitched to him. They didn't dare and they didn't have to. They gave him crap to hit. But he had to hit or the Braves would lose. Period. That's where all the strikeouts come into play. He had to swing at pitches no other hitter of his calibre had to swing at. Playing with a team with a stronger lineup (in a park less likely to yield home runs) he would have easily hit 200 more home runs. Maybe more. There was usually no other threat in their lineup. If he were such a mediocre hitter, do you think he'd be tied for 30th ALL-TIME in intentional walks? Probably not. Even without pitchers giving him anything decent to hit he ranks 45th on the ALL-TIME home run list. His batting average should not be a consideration here. Along with more home runs, he could have easily hit .030 higher with a decent team and some protection in the batting order.

You try to negate his All-Star appearances and Gold Glove awards by saying that they can be based on reputation or fan favoritism (the latter being my interpretation from your article) but then go on to state how many top-10 MVP finishes he didn't have. That can be VERY biased and a case could EASILY be made that he should have won 3 more MVP awards than the 2 he won. Without Dale Murphy, the Braves would not have won 50 games in most seasons for the entire decade of the 80s. I'd love to hear anyone's debate on that.

You also failed to mention his consecutive games played streak (over 700 games). The biggest problem Murphy had with you (writers) is that he didn't make a spectacle of himself. If more people know the "whole story", he'd be in the Hall of Fame already.

Another voter (maybe a little more informed, maybe not) stated:

"In the '80s in the National League, three names topped the leader board: Mike Schmidt, Hall of Famer. Andre Dawson, future Hall of Famer. And Dale Murphy.

Through virtually the entire decade, if you asked the question. 'Who's the best player in the National League?' one of those three was the answer. And when the '80s were over, Murphy had led everybody in his league in runs and hits, tied with Schmidt for the most RBI and finished second to Schmidt in home runs.

But Dale Murphy was more than that. He was a back-to-back MVP, a five-time Gold Glove winner, a 30-30 man, a leading vote-getter in the All-Star balloting and one of the great baseball citizens of modern times.

So that, to this voter, makes him a Hall of Famer. And if he isn't, he sure deserves more than 116 votes."

Again, he still doesn't mention some of the other things I spoke of. Things the stats won't show you. Those things have to be considered. To not is to fail in your duty to the Hall of Fame, the men who played the game and the fans of the game.

Even if you want to go purely by stats, compare Murphy's career numbers to everyone in the Hall (and everyone that isn't). How many men are enshrined in the Hall? Would not someone in the top 50 (or 100) in several categories ALL-TIME deserve enshrinement?

You may or may not choose to respond to me (I hope you do), but I would really like to know if, after reading this, you still cannot manage to vote for Dale Murphy - Why? He was arguably the best player for the entire DECADE of the '80s. How can you dominate a decade and not be elected?

I'm sorry for being repetitive and I will end now. I just had to get this off my chest.

Thank you,

Jon E. Klinkel
Battle Creek, MI

Andre Dawson won the 1987 MVP award and Murph finished 11th. Yet, if you look at the statistics the only one that Dawson beat Murph in was homers, RBI and hits but Dawson had 55 more at bats.
Homers:Dawson 49, Murph 44
Hits: Dawson 178, Murph 167
RBI: Dawson 137, Murph 105
Average: Murph: .295, Dawson 287
OPS: Murph: 997, Dawson 893 (Only Jack Clark's was higher than Dale)
SB: Murph 16, Dawson 11
Runs: Murph 115, Dawson 90
2B: Murph 27, Dawson 24
BB: Murph 115, Dawson 32
OBP: Murph .417, Dawson .328
SLG: Murph .580, Dawson .568
IBB: Murph 29, Dawson 7
GDP: Dawson 15, Murph 11

The only reason Dale Murphy didnt win the MVP is because he was quiet. They both played on crappy teams. Dawson finished first, Murph finished 11th. He was robbed. I challenge anyone to show me who had a better year in the National league in 1987.