Pages

December 03, 2019

No, really, Dale Murphy is not a HOFer

Yes, the Modern Era contingent of Cooperstown's Veterans Committee selected him as a HOF nominee, but — Dale Murphy is not a HOFer. Been down this road before, Tomahawk Choppers. Less than 50 WAR, and 16 WAA. As for his back-to-back MVPs the fanbois tout? In 1982, he was essentially tied for fourth in WAR. In 1983, he was essentially in a six-way tie for first.

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.comView 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.comView 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.comView 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.comView 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:

  1. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 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?

    ReplyDelete
  3. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wow, get a hold of yourself. You both sound like four year olds.

    Bob Schnebly

    ReplyDelete
  6. 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.

    ReplyDelete

Your comments are appreciated, as is at least a modicum of politeness.
Comments are moderated, so yours may not appear immediately.
Due to various forms of spamming, comments with professional websites, not your personal website or blog, may be rejected.