And, not counting alleged roiders and those not yet eligible? Here's two other non-HOFers who have won two MVPs:
Juan Gonzales
Roger Maris
That said, Juan Gone was totally undeserving both times.
Maris even won back to back, like the Murph. Maris, though, was outright first in his first win, in 1960. He and Juan Gone are both around 40 WAR. Less than 10 WAR behind the Murph.
As for those MVP years?
Again, in 1982, he was essentially tied for fourth in WAR. In 1983, he was essentially in a six-way tie for first.
Gary Carter (an actual HOFer) got hosed in 1982; had he rightfully won the MVP, he might not have needed six shots to get in the Hall. (Carter got semi-hosed in 1984; by WAR, Ryne Sandberg deserved his crown, but Carter, second in WAR, was only 14th in voting. I look further down his page, and Carter is SECOND in career JAWS for catchers and STILL took six votes to get in.)
And, one of the Fansided nutters (and worse, Fanbois in comments) drinks and pours the Kool-Aid big time.
Seriously, if you're pulling up HOF MANAGERS Miller Huggins and John McGraw's players' WAR (which is indeed lower than the Murph's) to cite this as proof he belong in the Hall? You forgot Tony La Russa. And Red Schoendienst and Hughie Jennings arguably went in as player-manager combos.
And, you're also a total homer if you're going to point to the lower career WAR of the injury-shortened spans of Dizzy Dean and Roy Campanella. Or the segregation-shortened career of, say, Monte Irvin, unmentioned by them. (Monte's best year, by WAR, slightly edged the Murph.)
But, but, the Murph also won five Gold Gloves.
And had negative dWAR in three of those, being a poster child for Fielding Bible awards to come along.
He seems close, though, right?
Let's look at the Murph's stats.
R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ 17 40 9 1 4 14 1 1 2 27 .288 .308 .453 .761 111 27 62 10 3 4 29 3 3 10 53 .282 .322 .409 .731 108 75 172 35 10 25 101 8 6 38 89 .308 .357 .541 .898 149 82 168 28 10 13 90 19 7 30 80 .313 .349 .475 .824 133 107 215 44 8 21 88 17 19 58 107 .338 .397 .531 .927 145 102 194 32 12 30 117 20 7 57 92 .334 .394 .585 .979 166 109 193 45 7 25 94 20 4 67 101 .310 .380 .526 .906 140 71 153 31 1 17 79 10 7 25 69 .295 .327 .458 .785 115 29 62 14 3 9 48 6 2 9 25 .258 .287 .454 .742 105 41 66 19 3 6 29 7 5 22 45 .270 .330 .447 .776 113 68 154 29 4 12 69 12 9 28 89 .279 .311 .411 .722 97 73 173 28 0 16 94 11 10 41 89 .285 .328 .410 .738 104 88 198 42 4 34 125 5 13 52 80 .312 .365 .551 .916 149 89 174 31 3 31 116 1 6 56 126 .273 .330 .477 .807 117 77 149 28 0 26 97 7 3 44 104 .253 .311 .433 .744 92 43 97 18 1 12 55 0 1 32 70 .257 .314 .406 .720 103 56 146 27 0 22 97 0 0 38 91 .264 .308 .432 .741 110 71 176 30 3 21 92 4 7 41 102 .289 .330 .451 .781 118 47 120 26 2 11 59 3 3 33 98 .239 .288 .365 .653 81 45 108 22 2 11 56 3 2 29 91 .232 .279 .358 .638 76 2 12 4 0 0 3 0 1 4 7 .333 .400 .444 .844 130 1272 2712 526 75 339 1493 154 113 683 1537 .290 .339 .471 .810 121
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 12/18/2012.
Nice, solid numbers, eh?
Now, a few of you may be scratching your heads at this point. Those of you really familiar with his stats know they're not his.
No, they're not. They're Dave Parker's numbers.
Here's Murphy's.
R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ 3 17 6 0 0 9 0 0 7 9 .262 .333 .354 .687 91 5 24 8 1 2 14 0 1 0 8 .316 .316 .526 .842 112 66 120 14 3 23 79 11 7 42 145 .226 .284 .394 .679 80 53 106 7 2 21 57 6 1 38 67 .276 .340 .469 .809 113 98 160 27 2 33 89 9 6 59 133 .281 .349 .510 .858 135 43 91 12 1 13 50 14 5 44 72 .247 .325 .390 .716 100 113 168 23 2 36 109 23 11 93 134 .281 .378 .507 .885 142 131 178 24 4 36 121 30 4 90 110 .302 .393 .540 .933 149 94 176 32 8 36 100 19 7 79 134 .290 .372 .547 .919 149 118 185 32 2 37 111 10 3 90 141 .300 .388 .539 .927 152 89 163 29 7 29 83 7 7 75 141 .265 .347 .477 .824 121 115 167 27 1 44 105 16 6 115 136 .295 .417 .580 .997 157 77 134 35 4 24 77 3 5 74 125 .226 .313 .421 .734 106 60 131 16 0 20 84 3 2 65 142 .228 .306 .361 .667 89 60 138 23 1 24 83 9 3 61 130 .245 .318 .417 .735 99 38 81 14 0 17 55 9 2 41 84 .232 .312 .418 .731 96 22 57 9 1 7 28 0 1 20 46 .266 .328 .416 .744 105 66 137 33 1 18 81 1 0 48 93 .252 .309 .415 .724 103 5 10 1 0 2 7 0 0 1 13 .161 .175 .274 .449 26 1 6 1 0 0 7 0 0 5 15 .143 .224 .167 .391 1 1197 2111 350 39 398 1266 161 68 986 1748 .265 .346 .469 .815 121
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 12/18/2012.
Just not quite as good as Parker's, are they? The biggie career stat, OPS+, is a virtual tie. Counting stats? Parker's well ahead in most.
But, surely, Murph was affected by injuries in part. And, surely, with 2 MVP awards — shades of Joe Morgan! — he was the more valuable player.
I won't argue there.
Here's the Murph's career number on a few sabermetric stats:
RAA WAA RAR WAR oWAR dWAR oRAR 140 16.3 412 42.6 44.9 -7.6 445
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 12/18/2012.
And here's Parker's:
RAA WAA RAR WAR oWAR dWAR oRAR 44 6.7 354 36.3 37.9 -15.5 375
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 12/18/2012.
So, Murph WAS more valuable, yes. But, enough more valuable, not only in comparison to Parker but the HOF hurdle, to offset a relatively short career, and various injuries, and get in?
I say no. (And Murphy's injury issues weren't that serious, anyway.)
Murph never passed the smell test, and WAA, which I'm seeing more and more as a better marker than WAR, indicates that. Murphy was under 20 WAA. In general, IMO, if your WAA is less than half of your WAR, you have a weak case. And, that's on top of the weak case on WAR.
Let's look at WAR again vs. Diz and Campy. Murph never broke 7 WAR. Campy did twice as a catcher, playing fewer games per year. Diz did three times as a pitcher.
Otherwise? Never led the league in WAR. Only was in the top 10 five times among position players.
The claim that he played on bad teams? The 1980-84 Braves were all solid. 1982 was a division title winner. Besides, WAR is predicated on individual achievement. Mike Trout turns in 9 and 10 WAR years even as the Angels fail to make the playoffs. (From his first full season on, except injury-shortened 2017, EVERY Trout season is as good or better than Murphy's BEST season.)
Note: Here's the 16 committee members who will vote Dec. 7 on this year's veterans' class.
6 comments:
Dale Murphy only passes the HOF test if you lump him with Chuck Klein and Hack Wilson. These three players put up flashy numbers and were stars for five or six years, but otherwise mediocre at best. Murphy would not be the worst selection and the Veterans Committee is giving some undeserving players plaques. So, while I don't think Murphy is an all time great, it would not be surprising to see him inducted.
Right. After Baines and Morris NOTHING would surprise me. That said, Tony the Pony isn't on this year's committee, so maybe sanity reigns?
What you seemingly fail to comprehend (and your ignorance is blatant with your smart-ass comments) is that he ranks MIDDLE-OF-THE-PACK of CURRENT HOF outfielders. WAR means nothing, neither do your other goofball metrics. Murphy should have been a first-ballot HOF'er. Only people who lack common sense and are able to analyze exactly what he did when he did it (or just don't like him or want to see someone else in ahead of him who shouldn't be). If he had played for another team, his numbers would have been much better. You go out of your way to talk about what he "didn't" do or how poorly his "career" numbers stack up (even though that argument can be easily deflated). He could have won 5 MVP awards - LEGITIMATELY. If Dale Murphy shouldn't be in the Hall, you must SURELY agree that Sandy Koufax absolutely does NOT belong in. Murphy was the best player of an entire decade. Get over yourself.
A first-ballot Hall of Famer? Laughable?
Should have won 5 MVPs? Even more laughable.
Your ignorance of even base-level sabermetrics, mixed with appeals to bad decisions on some other CF admissions to the Hall, mixed with outright lies about him being in "the middle of the pack" of centerfielders already in the Hall (and it IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE: average WAR of a CF in the Hall is 71.1, WELL ahead of Murphy) confirms that even in the world of homer-ism, you're a rabid mouth-breather.
And, just on WAR alone, let alone setting aside injury? Dale Murphy couldn't carry Koufax's jock.
You've had your one comment.
You'll have no more.
Wow, get a hold of yourself. You both sound like four year olds.
Bob Schnebly
And you, if you think I'm one of the 4-year-old sounders, come off as paternalistic.
If you're otherwise not familiar with the more rabid Tomahawk Choppers on the subject of the Murph, Bob (I am and have been for years), it's better to stay out.
Post a Comment