We have to take into account eras. 36 boppers may not seem like a lot of home runs in this juiced ball era and the steroid era from yore but when Dale Murphy was clobbering 30 plus home runs it was significant.
Shadowlight, my friend. I have no problem with era and the homeruns Murphy hit. It's the batting average and the on base percentage and the brevity of the stellar part of his career. Many players hit lot of HR's, but didn't hit for average or get on base a lot.
However, with that said in having dug deeper into his stats, I will give the pros to him getting in. So here goes:
Dale Murphy led the National League in games, at bats, runs, hits, extra base hits, RBI, runs created, total bases and plate appearanes in the 1980's. According to Bleacher Report. I'm a little skeptical about the RBI, Runs, because there was a 7-8 year stretch where another site said Murphy was second only to Mike Schmidt. If those stats are correct, that's pretty amazing. He was also a 30-30 guy. That stat can't be refuted. He was a two MVP. No doubts there.
In his 1983 MVP year he became the only player in history to compile a .300 batting avverage, 30 HR's, 120 RBI, 130 runs scored, 90 BB, 30 stolen bases, with fewer than 10 times caught stealing. Amazing! BTW, I figured his BA in the 80's. It was .273. Not horrible by any means.
OK, now the Cons: I knew some this, but got some of this information right of the Cooperstown Cred site Shadowlight was speaking of.
As I've said, he falls short of the benchmark stats you would expect from a HOF.
The 398 HRs are not a low total, but again combined with the low BA. 265 and OBP .342 in the second best hitters ball park in the NL during Murphy's era.
His offensive numbers a product of playing in "The Launching Pad."
Murphy home and road splits:
Home: BA .285, HR, 205, RBI: 603 OBP .374, SLG .513
Away: BA .251, HR 166, RBI: 540 OBP .329, SLG .445
Shadowlight mentioned in a previous post that none of his teammates benefitted from hitting at the launching pad. That's because, he didn't have any teammates that could have. The Braves were that bad. Which could also be cause for a pro for Murphy, however, no matter how bad your teammates are, you can still do your share of the hitting. They're not hitting for you. See Mike Trout's career BA .307 despite playing for a horrible team and a non-hitters ball park to boot.
Just for the information, here is the Braves team home-road slits from 1976-1990.
Home: BA. .262, HR 1047, RBI 4853, Runs 5165, OBP. .330, SLG .395
Away: BA. .239, HR 820, RBI 4050, Runs 4359, OBP .304, SLG. .348
From 76-90, only the Chicago Cubs had a bigger home field hitting advantage.
According to WAR Runs from fielding stat, Murphy was 21st out 21 MLB players who played at least 500 games and 50% of their games in centerfield during his years.
21st out of 21 players, last.
His career WAR is 46.5. Way too low for a HOF outfielder. 129th out of 160 among HOF position players.
Career OPS+ 121. A little low. Only eight enshrined HOF outfielders have a career OPS+ than 121.
So, there are just some of the pros and cons. There are more for each side. As I said when this began, I wouldn't consider any player the afore mentioned list, Parker, Evans, Mattingly, etc. and again nor do I think Harold Baines should be in the HOF. If anyone on this list deserves it, it would be Dale Murphy, no doubt.
By looking at all of this information, I am compelled to change my mind about Dale Murphy, but would like to add just a few more things.
Shadowlight mentioned Joe DiMaggio and Chipper Jones. Just a thought about those two HOF's compared to Murphy and would like anyone else's thoughts to further convince me about Murphy?
In looking at DiMaggio's career of only 13 years. He missed 3 of his prime years due to his military service. Dead smack in the middle of his prime. Of his 13 years if you look at his stats he was in HOF form in 11. Think about that, 11 of his 13 years he put up HOF numbers. He hit over .300 in 11 of those years and .263, Murphy's career average, in his final season. He averaged almost 28 HR's, surely he would have averaged more if he would had those prime years. Career BA. 0f .325. Two batting titles, .381 high and three MVP's. Nine time World Series Champion. Virtually the classic slash line, .300/.400/.500 for his career. 78.1 WAR. Doing all of this in five less years than Murphy. The overall numbers aren't even close.
Chipper Jones basically played the same of years as Murphy, 18. Of those 18 , Jones put up HOF numbers in 11 years as well. Again the classic slash line .300/.400/.500. Remember only 18 players in MLB history have that career line or better. Batting champion at .364. MVP., 468 HR's over 1600 RBI's. 85.2 WAR. WS Champion.
In looking at Dale Murphy's stats over 18 years, I will give him five, maybe six HOF years. Only six over an 18 year career compared to DiMaggio and Jones. Maybe one of those years compares to any of what DiMaggio did.
Again, there's no doubt what Murphy did in those 5-6 years are HOF worthy, but is 5-6 years enough as compared to the likes of DiMaggio and Jones. Players who rank 68th and 51st. Jones ranks 51st in career WAR and Murphy's stats aren't even close to Jones. Murphy's career WAR is 46.5, T-364.
As I said in a post earlier. How far do we reach down to elect players into the HOF? Does anyone want to try and answer? I always thought that the HOF was reserved for the very best, not the almost very best. Maybe I'm wrong.
With all of that I've said. I also grew up watching Dale Murphy. As a Reds fan, I did enjoy watching Murph. on TBS/Atlanta. In looking deeper into his career, I have a new respect for what he accomplished and am compelled to change my mind, as if really matters what I think. He was indeed a great player for 5-6 years, but is that enough as compared others in any era? I have enjoyed the discussion. Many knowledgeable posters here at CF.
Someone convince me. I'm almost there.
Thanks.
