Crime Dog to the Hall!

[chop2chip]

Schilling not being in the HOF is insane to me. Do we think his politics are much different that Chipper or Smoltz? the majority of baseball players who played during his time?

I don’t think he should be disproportionately punished because he’s too much of an ass to keep his opinions to himself.

(For the record, I am 100% in the camp that Schilling the person sucks)

 

[chop2chip]

A silly stat that didn't exist in the 80s should not be held against him.

He also didn’t make the hall before that silly little stat existed.

 

[Tapate50]

Schilling not being in the HOF is insane to me. Do we think his politics are much different that Chipper or Smoltz? the majority of baseball players who played during his time?

I don’t think he should be disproportionately punished because he’s too much of an ass to keep his opinions to himself.

(For the record, I am 100% in the camp that Schilling the person sucks)

I tend to agree. Ty Cobb in the hall still? Yeah thats what I figured.

 

[bravesfanforlife88]

I tend to agree. Ty Cobb in the hall still? Yeah thats what I figured.

I guess the question would be would Ty Cobb make the HoF today? Had he had access to social media, would his dumbass comments make people think twice about thim.

I said it earlier in this thread that Schilling should be in and I see at least a few agree. Dude is a cluster **** as a human, but was one of the best to ever pitch.

 

[50PoundHead]

We've already set the new standard of it being a big hall rather than a small hall. Murphy was among the very best players offensively in the '80s.

Not going to really comment on Murphy's worthiness, but I agree that trying to bridge eras has become extremely difficult and while WAR measures across eras, I think it is a tenuous measure given how much pitching and defense have changed. I view McGriff similarly to Don Sutton. Sutton had a nice career, but he stacked up a lot of WAR by playing 22 seasons. I don't lose much sleep over this (and Murphy is one of the my triumverate of favorites Braves along with Hank Aaron and Tom Glavine), but I can see the Hall of Fame turning into the Shrine of the Above Average with Long Careers.

I can remember when Aparicio was voted in and there was a bit of a furor. He had only approximately 55 career WAR, but he was someone who brought speed back into the game and gets some credit for having an effect that rippled through baseball.

Schilling belongs in. He comes off as a box of rocks, but he had a very good career and didn't do PEDs. Maybe MLB is still mad at him for taking a bat to the QuestTec machine.

 

[mossy]

So happy for McGriff.

 

[bravesfanMatt]

I agree Murph doesn’t belong. McGriff. Maybe. I mean I guess he had a long career and played pretty good for those years. Only guy I was ant at this point is druw. He absolutely belongs in.

 

[FreemanFan]

I still don't understand why Kirby Puckett was elected on the first ballot while Mattingly is still waiting for the call from the Hall. They played different positions, but their career stats were virtually identical.

Congrats to the Crime Dog. He should have been elected 10 years ago.

 

[zitothebrave]

He was one of the biggest snubs. To me it's always been baffling that they would hold against him his numbers compared to steroid users, but also wouldn't put steroid users in. He also lost a lot of games in 94

 

[thewupk]

I still don't understand why Kirby Puckett was elected on the first ballot while Mattingly is still waiting for the call from the Hall. They played different positions, but their career stats were virtually identical.

Congrats to the Crime Dog. He should have been elected 10 years ago.

It's because Puckett was forced to retire while still playing well. I get that you can't assume he's going to still be productive (he was 36) but there is precedent for this and just the way it is. If Murphy and Andruw for that matter had career-ending injuries at 30 and weren't allowed to spend years being mediocre or bad then they would have been in already. Is it fair? No, but that's just the way it is.

 

[thewupk]

He was one of the biggest snubs. To me it's always been baffling that they would hold against him his numbers compared to steroid users, but also wouldn't put steroid users in. He also lost a lot of games in 94

I agree. If the strike didn't happen he would have gotten to 500 and been in years ago. As it stood, he had the most HR and RBI of any non steroid user that wasn't in the HOF.

 

[NYCBrave]

It's because Puckett was forced to retire while still playing well. I get that you can't assume he's going to still be productive (he was 36) but there is precedent for this and just the way it is. If Murphy and Andruw for that matter had career-ending injuries at 30 and weren't allowed to spend years being mediocre or bad then they would have been in already. Is it fair? No, but that's just the way it is.

Mattingly was also forced to retire at age 34 and was still playing well also.

 

[thewupk]

Mattingly was also forced to retire at age 34 and was still playing well also.

Meh. He had a 105 OPS+ in his last 6 years which is fairly mediocre.

 

[Carp]

A stat that's pretty accurate at gauging who's HOF worthy. He just wasn't good enough for long enough. Not the only player to have that issue.

It's a stat that can't accurately account historical value though. Being a 2 time MVP also holds a lot of weight. And there are other players who flamed out early and are still made the HOF.

 

[thewupk]

It's a stat that can't accurately account historical value though. Being a 2 time MVP also holds a lot of weight. And there are other players who flamed out early and are still made the HOF.

According to who? He was on the ballot for years and the writers didn't think he was worthy. The Veterans Committee didn't think he was worthy. A pitching equivalent would be Johan Santana. 2 time Cy Young winner but not longevity. It takes more than a small window of HOF level play to get a plaque.

 

[NYCBrave]

Meh. He had a 105 OPS+ in his last 6 years which is fairly mediocre.

I get it. But he could have racked up the all important counting stats. And maybe even boost his profile by finally getting to win in the playoffs since he retired a year before the Yankees dominant run.

 

[thewupk]

I get it. But he could have racked up the all important counting stats. And maybe even boost his profile by finally getting to win in the playoffs since he retired a year before the Yankees dominant run.

But was that likely? That's the point. Mattingly was very much in decline and hadn't been a star level player in years. Him being forced to retire is very different than Puckett who was still playing very well and had been an allstar for 11 consecutive years before being forced to retire. The two don't even compare in that regard.

 

[DirkPiggler]

Because I can be a non-homer and look at things objectively. 44 career WAR just isn't good enough.

Why I disagree...

1. If Murph had put up those same 44 WAR (46.5 bWAR) while playing much of his career in New York, Boston, Chicago, or LA, he would have probably been a first or second ballot Hall of Famer. He is penalized for playing in what was at the time a smaller market. If his numbers are good enough to get him in as a big market player, they are good enough period.

2. Harold Baines, Jim Rice, Tony Oliva, Ted Simmons. Those guys are all in the Hall of Fame, in spite of similar WAR numbers. None of them was ever a top 2-3 player in MLB. Maybe Oliva in his peak which was before my time. Murphy was one of the top players in the game from 1982 through 1987. You can make the argument that you shouldn't base a candidate's worthiness on the lowest common denominator, but why does our guy have to be the one to get the shaft if we're letting in unworthy candidates?

3. Character. We are clearly excluding players with deserving qualifications due to character concerns. Pete Rose, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and probably Curt Schilling would all be in if it was purely a numbers game. If we are going to hold people out because they're "bad", shouldn't being exceptionally "good" give a boost to fringe candidates?

If we're going to use subjective criteria, there is no real argument for keeping Murphy out. If the decision criteria are objective, like a minimum number of WAR, then get rid of all the guys below that count and let Bonds, Rose, Clemens, etc. in.

 

[DirkPiggler]

Also, RE the Jim Rice/Harold Baines arguments: Murphy's injury troubles late in his career were almost certainly a cumulative effect of playing more demanding defensive positions for much of his career (C early as a big guy, CF in his prime). If he had been able to DH for 50-150 games per year like those guys and others from the AL, it's not unreasonable to think his stats, both counting and WAR, would have been much higher. It's not that Murphy was a great defender (in spite of the Gold Gloves) as much as the damage it did to his body and his offensive capabilities.

 

[thewupk]

Why I disagree...

1. If Murph had put up those same 44 WAR (46.5 bWAR) while playing much of his career in New York, Boston, Chicago, or LA, he would have probably been a first or second ballot Hall of Famer. He is penalized for playing in what was at the time a smaller market. If his numbers are good enough to get him in as a big market player, they are good enough period.

2. Harold Baines, Jim Rice, Tony Oliva, Ted Simmons. Those guys are all in the Hall of Fame, in spite of similar WAR numbers. None of them was ever a top 2-3 player in MLB. Maybe Oliva in his peak which was before my time. Murphy was one of the top players in the game from 1982 through 1987. You can make the argument that you shouldn't base a candidate's worthiness on the lowest common denominator, but why does our guy have to be the one to get the shaft if we're letting in unworthy candidates?

3. Character. We are clearly excluding players with deserving qualifications due to character concerns. Pete Rose, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and probably Curt Schilling would all be in if it was purely a numbers game. If we are going to hold people out because they're "bad", shouldn't being exceptionally "good" give a boost to fringe candidates?

If we're going to use subjective criteria, there is no real argument for keeping Murphy out. If the decision criteria are objective, like a minimum number of WAR, then get rid of all the guys below that count and let Bonds, Rose, Clemens, etc. in.

1) Look at Don Mattingly. 40.7 fWAR and 42.4 bWAR while playing his entire career for the Yankees. Like Murphy he failed with the writers and just failed in the veterans committee. Both were great in their 20's but were mediocre at best after turning 30. Lots of players are like that. Literally the only thing separating Murphy from a lot of other cases is the 2nd MVP. But to me that doesn't mean much. Lots of players have had multiple MVP caliber seasons but an entire career that just isn't up to par.

2) It's not perfect and Baines is likely the worst player in the HOF. He got in via a stacked veterans committee in his favor. Just because some undeserving players get it doesn't mean more should. I'm a big hall guy but there has to be a line somewhere.

3) There is no precedent for it though. To me it would just be a numbers game and I'd allow those players in the HOF. The voters feel differently. Just like they felt differently about Murphy.