McGwire, Gwynn, Ripken Highlight HOF Ballot

[Houston]

 The Link

Who will be elected this year?

I say Gwynn, Ripken, and probably one other player, maybe Andre Dawson or Jim Rice.

[Sambito]

I'd vote for the hawk, but my opinion is like having
an asshole on your elbow - not really needed.

[Bench]

Quote:
The Link

Who will be elected this year?

I say Gwynn, Ripken, and probably one other player, maybe Andre Dawson or Jim Rice.

You really think McGwire won't get any votes because he didn't want to talk about the past?

I'd say that's an untenable double standard capable of few entities other than the BBWA.

[jaklewein]

In Buster Olney's blog (pay-only, so no link), he states that he's fairly certain that McGwire, Sosa, Bonds and Palmeiro will never be voted into the HOF.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
In Buster Olney's blog (pay-only, so no link), he states that he's fairly certain that McGwire, Sosa, Bonds and Palmeiro will never be voted into the HOF.

This is the first test case, and it's going to be interesting to see what happens.

[JGrave]

Quote:

Quote:
In Buster Olney's blog (pay-only, so no link), he states that he's fairly certain that McGwire, Sosa, Bonds and Palmeiro will never be voted into the HOF.

This is the first test case, and it's going to be interesting to see what happens.

Does this make Griffey the greatest homerun hitter of that generation?

[drew corleone]

Quote:
In Buster Olney's blog (pay-only, so no link), he states that he's fairly certain that McGwire, Sosa, Bonds and Palmeiro will never be voted into the HOF.

IIRC, he also said that he inteded to vote for each of them.

[Trey]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
In Buster Olney's blog (pay-only, so no link), he states that he's fairly certain that McGwire, Sosa, Bonds and Palmeiro will never be voted into the HOF.

This is the first test case, and it's going to be interesting to see what happens.

Does this make Griffey the greatest homerun hitter of that generation?

Without getting into whether or not he actually did or didn't, why is Griffey never lumped in with those guys?  He hits for a lot of power and is constantly injured.  The "tell tale" signs of drug use.  Like I said, I'm not accusing the guys, I'm just trying to figure out why some guys are accused and others aren't.

Some are obvious.  Bonds (BALCO & grand jury), Giambi (grand jury), and Palmeiro (positive test) come to mind.  But there's a lot of names that just seem to get thrown around.  Why is Griffey assumed to be clean, while everyone else is assumed to be so dirty?

[jaklewein]

Quote:

Quote:
In Buster Olney's blog (pay-only, so no link), he states that he's fairly certain that McGwire, Sosa, Bonds and Palmeiro will never be voted into the HOF.

IIRC, he also said that he inteded to vote for each of them.

You're right, he did. Well, actually he said he'd vote for the players that performed the best during their era...I'd think each of them would qualify as such.

[JGrave]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
In Buster Olney's blog (pay-only, so no link), he states that he's fairly certain that McGwire, Sosa, Bonds and Palmeiro will never be voted into the HOF.

This is the first test case, and it's going to be interesting to see what happens.

Does this make Griffey the greatest homerun hitter of that generation?

Without getting into whether or not he actually did or didn't, why is Griffey never lumped in with those guys?  He hits for a lot of power and is constantly injured.  The "tell tale" signs of drug use.  Like I said, I'm not accusing the guys, I'm just trying to figure out why some guys are accused and others aren't.

Some are obvious.  Bonds (BALCO & grand jury), Giambi (grand jury), and Palmeiro (positive test) come to mind.  But there's a lot of names that just seem to get thrown around.  Why is Griffey assumed to be clean, while everyone else is assumed to be so dirty?

Probably because his name has never been lumped with any of the guys who have been outed.  Either he is clean or is better at hiding it.  I think he's clean though and his injuries don't appear to be from anything but playing hard.  Who knows though.  He may be a roider.

[tophfar]

Quote:
Without getting into whether or not he actually did or didn't, why is Griffey never lumped in with those guys?  He hits for a lot of power and is constantly injured.  The "tell tale" signs of drug use.  Like I said, I'm not accusing the guys, I'm just trying to figure out why some guys are accused and others aren't.

Some are obvious.  Bonds (BALCO & grand jury), Giambi (grand jury), and Palmeiro (positive test) come to mind.  But there's a lot of names that just seem to get thrown around.  Why is Griffey assumed to be clean, while everyone else is assumed to be so dirty?

the size thing?  Bond's (head) blew up.  McGwire was a giant.  Giambi was thick as hell.  Sosa went from skinny to hulking beast in a couple of years.

I don't recall Griffey ever packing that much muscle on his frame in a short period of time.

I dunno.

[CarolinaStro]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
In Buster Olney's blog (pay-only, so no link), he states that he's fairly certain that McGwire, Sosa, Bonds and Palmeiro will never be voted into the HOF.

This is the first test case, and it's going to be interesting to see what happens.

Does this make Griffey the greatest homerun hitter of that generation?

Without getting into whether or not he actually did or didn't, why is Griffey never lumped in with those guys?  He hits for a lot of power and is constantly injured.  The "tell tale" signs of drug use.  Like I said, I'm not accusing the guys, I'm just trying to figure out why some guys are accused and others aren't.

Some are obvious.  Bonds (BALCO & grand jury), Giambi (grand jury), and Palmeiro (positive test) come to mind.  But there's a lot of names that just seem to get thrown around.  Why is Griffey assumed to be clean, while everyone else is assumed to be so dirty?

For me (right or wrong), it is because he doesn't look like a mutant or did not have a freakish growth spurt in his late 20s or early 30s.

[Bench]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
In Buster Olney's blog (pay-only, so no link), he states that he's fairly certain that McGwire, Sosa, Bonds and Palmeiro will never be voted into the HOF.

This is the first test case, and it's going to be interesting to see what happens.

Does this make Griffey the greatest homerun hitter of that generation?

Without getting into whether or not he actually did or didn't, why is Griffey never lumped in with those guys?  He hits for a lot of power and is constantly injured.  The "tell tale" signs of drug use.  Like I said, I'm not accusing the guys, I'm just trying to figure out why some guys are accused and others aren't.

Some are obvious.  Bonds (BALCO & grand jury), Giambi (grand jury), and Palmeiro (positive test) come to mind.  But there's a lot of names that just seem to get thrown around.  Why is Griffey assumed to be clean, while everyone else is assumed to be so dirty?

Because it's all rumor and groupthink. All the reporters keep repeating that they've never heard anyone suspect Griffey, just like they all know that everyone knows about McGwire. The fact that they rely upon this conjecture to manipulate the Hall of Fame roll call is almost as absurdly offensive as the "we won't vote him in on the first ballot as a punishment and warning to others" bullshit that gets floated from time to time. It is arrogant smugness at best.

I agree with Olney. Vote for who you thought were the best in any given era. Leave the investigative journalism to actual journalists. If they had actual evidence beyond "everyone thinks so" and knowing winks they would have already submitted their pulitzer bids.

[drew corleone]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
In Buster Olney's blog (pay-only, so no link), he states that he's fairly certain that McGwire, Sosa, Bonds and Palmeiro will never be voted into the HOF.

This is the first test case, and it's going to be interesting to see what happens.

Does this make Griffey the greatest homerun hitter of that generation?

Without getting into whether or not he actually did or didn't, why is Griffey never lumped in with those guys?  He hits for a lot of power and is constantly injured.  The "tell tale" signs of drug use.  Like I said, I'm not accusing the guys, I'm just trying to figure out why some guys are accused and others aren't.

Some are obvious.  Bonds (BALCO & grand jury), Giambi (grand jury), and Palmeiro (positive test) come to mind.  But there's a lot of names that just seem to get thrown around.  Why is Griffey assumed to be clean, while everyone else is assumed to be so dirty?

Because it's all rumor and groupthink. All the reporters keep repeating that they've never heard anyone suspect Griffey, just like they all know that everyone knows about McGwire. The fact that they rely upon this conjecture to manipulate the Hall of Fame roll call is almost as absurdly offensive as the "we won't vote him in on the first ballot as a punishment and warning to others" bullshit that gets floated from time to time. It is arrogant smugness at best.

I agree with Olney. Vote for who you thought were the best in any given era. Leave the investigative journalism to actual journalists. If they had actual evidence beyond "everyone thinks so" and knowing winks they would have already submitted their pulitzer bids.

I hate that crap, too. If a guy is an HOFer, then he's an HOFer. It's asinine that some sportswriters feel the need to vote against people (steroirds or not) because they think that even though the player in question deserves enshrinement, they just don't feel he should go in on the first ballot. I remember someone didn't vote for Nolan Ryan because he didn't feel that Ryan warranted a unanimous vote. Unbelievable.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Quote:

Quote:
Without getting into whether or not he actually did or didn't, why is Griffey never lumped in with those guys?  He hits for a lot of power and is constantly injured.  The "tell tale" signs of drug use.  Like I said, I'm not accusing the guys, I'm just trying to figure out why some guys are accused and others aren't.

Some are obvious.  Bonds (BALCO & grand jury), Giambi (grand jury), and Palmeiro (positive test) come to mind.  But there's a lot of names that just seem to get thrown around.  Why is Griffey assumed to be clean, while everyone else is assumed to be so dirty?

the size thing?  Bond's (head) blew up.  McGwire was a giant.  Giambi was thick as hell.  Sosa went from skinny to hulking beast in a couple of years.

I don't recall Griffey ever packing that much muscle on his frame in a short period of time.

I dunno.

Although, that Simpson's episode (about a decade ago now) did draw some un-wanted attention to the size of Griffey's head and it continued to grow throughout the episode.  Was this Groenig's way of alluding to Griffey's steroid/HGH use?  Was it Griffey's way of pointing out the freakish consequences of steroid/HGH use?  We'll never know for certain!!!

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Because it's all rumor and groupthink.

Really? I don't read many sportswriters, but I think the cases against Bonds (BALCO), McGwire (evasive before Congress), Palmeiro (positive test) and Giambi (admission) appear to have some merit to them. And Sosa has the rap that he bragged about being willing to take a test but then refused to do so, although this seems like weaker evidence than that against the others. I've never heard of Griffey having any evidence like this against him, though. So maybe it's not all groupthink or hearsay. Maybe there's something more to consider there when it comes to Bonds, McGwire, Palmeiro, Giambi and Sosa.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Although, that Simpson's episode (about a decade ago now) did draw some un-wanted attention to the size of Griffey's head and it continued to grow throughout the episode.

A decade ago? You're getting old. That episode first aired almost 15 years ago.

The Link

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Quote:

Quote:
Although, that Simpson's episode (about a decade ago now) did draw some un-wanted attention to the size of Griffey's head and it continued to grow throughout the episode.

A decade ago? You're getting old. That episode first aired almost 15 years ago.

The Link

Oh damn.  I couldn't remember if I was in Highschool ('92 was my senior year) or college.

[Bench]

Quote:

Quote:
Because it's all rumor and groupthink.

Really? I don't read many sportswriters, but I think the cases against Bonds (BALCO), McGwire (evasive before Congress), Palmeiro (positive test) and Giambi (admission) appear to have some merit to them. And Sosa has the rap that he bragged about being willing to take a test but then refused to do so, although this seems like weaker evidence than that against the others. I've never heard of Griffey having any evidence like this against him, though. So maybe it's not all groupthink or hearsay. Maybe there's something more to consider there when it comes to Bonds, McGwire, Palmeiro, Giambi and Sosa.

I think there's a significant difference between the evidence against Bonds, Palmeiro and Giambi and that against McGwire. For McGwire, the evidence consists of Canseco saying he did it (rumor), and he was evasive before congress (conjecture). The evasiveness could be for a lot of reasons, one of which could be he didn't want to lie one way or the other, he didn't want to admit that he did it, or simply that he didn't want to open the can of worms which would lead him to throwing former teammates and fellow players under the bus; something which at the time really infuriated the players, especially Schilling at the hearings, about Canseco. But not wanting to talk about it is far different than an actual admission (sort of, I remember him apologizing but I don't remember what for...) from Giambi, the positive test from Palmeiro, and the grand jury testimony (also an admission, he just didn't know what it was) and the sea of evidence in connection with Balco against Bonds. The degree of evidence is much stronger in the latter instances than against McGwire such that in my mind they're not lumped in the same group.

That being said, I think either baseball should ban them from being eligible for the Hall, a la Rose, or not. If not, than the BBWA should compare their on the field performances with that of their peers and evaluatate their Hall of Fame worthiness on that alone. This is, afterall, the same group which won't give Jim Rice fair consideration because he wasn't very nice to them. Not exactly the most impartial and rational group of people to make these decisions that involve a great deal on rumor and conjecture.

For instance, in the aforementioned Olney blog, he discusses how everyone was convinced Corey Lidle used steriods. He was a journeyman minor leaguer who suddenly got bigger and more durable and became a good major leaguer. But then later Lidle went after Bonds for the steriod thing, and his friends made it clear to the journalists that there's no way Lidle would have used steroids. So now everyone is convinced that Lidle was not a steroid user. I think that the issue is too murky, not even getting into the "if a significant amount of pitchers were using steroids doesn't that even the playing field for the hitters" debate for a bunch of journalists to annoint themselves arbiters of whodunnit and who didn't.

[Foghorn]

Quote:
In Buster Olney's blog (pay-only, so no link), he states that he's fairly certain that McGwire, Sosa, Bonds and Palmeiro will never be voted into the HOF.

Sorry, but Bonds is a HOFer.  If you stop his career in 1997, he's a HOFer.  I'm not convinced he had been juicing since Day 1.  he gets in.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Quote:

Quote:
In Buster Olney's blog (pay-only, so no link), he states that he's fairly certain that McGwire, Sosa, Bonds and Palmeiro will never be voted into the HOF.

Sorry, but Bonds is a HOFer.  If you stop his career in 1997, he's a HOFer.  I'm not convinced he had been juicing since Day 1.  he gets in.

And I think McGwire should be in as well. Court of public opinion (aka a lynch mob) be damned.

[Limey]

Quote:
McGwire (evasive before Congress)...

I've seen BFiBs opine that Ronald was "caught" with Andro on purpose, to deflect attention from possible 'roid use.  Better to attribute his ridiculous bulking up to a dodgy, but at the time not banned by MLB, substance than be thought of as a juicer.

It sounds like a plausible scenario (the sort of thing an agent would come up with) except that I don't think he was in danger of being outed as a juicer at the time.  Everyone was diggin' the long ball, so whether he was cheating or not wasn't an issue.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
In Buster Olney's blog (pay-only, so no link), he states that he's fairly certain that McGwire, Sosa, Bonds and Palmeiro will never be voted into the HOF.

Sorry, but Bonds is a HOFer.  If you stop his career in 1997, he's a HOFer.  I'm not convinced he had been juicing since Day 1.  he gets in.

And I think McGwire should be in as well. Court of public opinion (aka a lynch mob) be damned.

At this point, I don't have a personal opinion on who should and should not be elected to the Hall.  I do think the steroid influence is a disgrace but it's hard to single out an individual when the problem was so wide-spread.  That said, I think McGwire and Bonds will never be caught "red handed" (i.e. failed test) but there's substantial reason to question the integrity of both.  

That will be sufficient for most BBWA members to justify their "no" vote.  I don't think it's fair but at this point, but the writers/voters don't see it that way.  They think in order to be accountable themselves, they need to hold these players that everyone believes cheated accountable.  The only way they can achieve that is to prevent their HOF election.  

And I agree, Bonds should be in for his career before his apparent juicing started.  I'm not so sure about McGwire.  However, any equivocation on the subject comes down to splitting hairs.  There were a number of players with some suspect traits or trends beyond projected talent level.  As much as I loathe to post it, many fans outside Houston are convinced Bagwell was a juicer.  I don't share that opinion and think it's grossly unfair to reach that conclusion.  However, the same can be said by fans of McGwire, and to a lesser degree, Bonds (given the grand jury testimony that was leaked).  

I think it will be telling if Bonds fails to land a contract for next year.  I am getting the impression that MLB is sick of Bonds, the negative press he generates, and the risk that he will be exposed after he breaks Aaron's record.  That would mean, unlike McGwire, there's no washing away his legacy.  McGwire may well be forgotten, accept by the hardcore fans, 10 yrs from now.   We all know who Hank Aaron is, even though most of us never saw him play.  Until I was in college, I did not know who Jimmie Foxx was.  McGwire will be obscure trivia, along with Sosa.  Bonds has a chance to become a part of well known baseball history.  

To add to all of that, this will be a lasting part of Selig's legacy as well.  I can't imagine he's just sitting back, doing nothing, just waiting to see how this unfolds.  Whether he himself acts in violation of league rules, I doubt it, but he'll pursue every avenue he can.  Of that, I'm certain.

[Mike]

Gwyn, Ripken will get in, it be nice to see Rice and Murphy get in

[Alkie]

Sweet Jesus, why would it be nice to see Dale Murphy in the HoF?

[jaklewein]

Quote:
Sweet Jesus, why would it be nice to see Dale Murphy in the HoF?

I agree, but for 7-8 years during the 80's he was some kind of player.  Talk about a 5 tool player...obviously he could hit, but he could run and he was one heck of an OF (great arm) too.  Too late for me to think more than a few seconds...but in the early to mid 80's, was there a better right-fielder in the game?  Andre Dawson comes to mind...but at this late of an hour that's all I got.

[Alkie]

Dale Murphy has ZERO reason whatsoever to be in the Hall of Fame.

I remember him well.  Above average?  Oh yes.  HoF?  Nosuh.

[MusicMan]

I suffered through three mid-80s years in Atlanta.  Dale was my favorite Bravo at the time.  But he has no better argument to be in the Hall than Mike Scott does.

[jaklewein]

Quote:
Dale Murphy has ZERO reason whatsoever to be in the Hall of Fame.

I remember him well.  Above average?  Oh yes.  HoF?  Nosuh.

I said I agreed with you...just wanted to throw out there that his career numbers (what you need for the HOF) weren't indicitive of the type of player he was in his prime.  When he fell off, he did so quickness...and it was ugly.

[Alkie]

GODDAMMIT MAN, WHY DON'T YOU JUST AGREE WITH ME???

[Alkie]

jak - It was a JOKE.  Clean out your PM box, it's full.

[Froback]

Quote:
I suffered through three mid-80s years in Atlanta.  Dale was my favorite Bravo at the time.  But he has no better argument to be in the Hall than Mike Scott does.

I disagree, I look at Murphy like people looked at Koufax.  Murphy was arguably the best player in the NL for approximately 5 years (winning 2 MVPs in that time).  While he didn't sustain it as well as long as some, if you put in Koufax, why not Murph?  The only answer is he didn't play in a big market and played on a team that was devoid of other talent.  Neither is his fault.

[Alkie]

Not at any point in his career was Dale Murphy the Sandy Koufax of <anything>.  

The 5 years Koufax had were arguably the most dominant 5 years of any player in the sport's history.  I remember the 80s and you just can't say the same thing about Dale Murphy.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Quote:

I disagree, I look at Murphy like people looked at Koufax.  Murphy was arguably the best player in the NL for approximately 5 years (winning 2 MVPs in that time).  

No, he wasn't. Mike Schmidt and Sandy Koufax just choked on their Wheaties.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
No, he wasn't. Mike Schmidt and Sandy Koufax just choked on their Wheaties.

Murphy doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame, but it's not ridiculous to include him in the argument of the best player in the league during his prime. Here are Murphy and Schmidt per season for the six years from 1982 to 1987:

Player    Avg   OBP   Slg  2B  HR    R  RBI  BB  SB  CS
-------------------------------------------------------
Schmidt  .279  .390  .539  26  36   97  105  98   5   5
Murphy   .289  .382  .531  28  36  110  105  90  18   6

Schmidt won four Gold Gloves over that span, Murphy won five. Schmidt won one MVP, Murphy won two. Of course, Schmidt had eight seasons like that before that six-year span, whereas Murphy only had one other season of that caliber. And that's the difference, Schmidt had 14 great seasons, while Murphy only had seven.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
The 5 years Koufax had were arguably the most dominant 5 years of any player in the sport's history.

Does that make five years enough?

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Quote:

Quote:
No, he wasn't. Mike Schmidt and Sandy Koufax just choked on their Wheaties.

Murphy doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame, but it's not ridiculous to include him in the argument of the best player in the league during his prime. Here are Murphy and Schmidt per season for the six years from 1982 to 1987:

Player    Avg   OBP   Slg  2B  HR    R  RBI  BB  SB  CS
-------------------------------------------------------
Schmidt  .279  .390  .539  26  36   97  105  98   5   5
Murphy   .289  .382  .531  28  36  110  105  90  18   6

Schmidt won four Gold Gloves over that span, Murphy won five. Schmidt won one MVP, Murphy won two. Of course, Schmidt had eight seasons like that before that six-year span, whereas Murphy only had one other season of that caliber. And that's the difference, Schmidt had 14 great seasons, while Murphy only had seven.

Okay, so one could make an argument that Murph was better than Schmidt from '82 to '87. I'd still give Schmidt the edge because of the more difficult position he played. BTW, out of curiosity, how does that comparison look when you change it from '81 to '86?

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Okay, so one could make an argument that Murph was better than Schmidt from '82 to '87. I'd still give Schmidt the edge because of the more difficult position he played. BTW, out of curiosity, how does that comparison look when you change it from '81 to '86?

If you move it outside of Murphy's prime, then Schmidt is the hands-down winner. I didn't save the spreadsheet, so I don't have it easily calculable. By the way, Murphy was a center fielder for five of those six seasons, so I'm not sure the assumption that Schmidt played the tougher position is accurate. I'm willing to accept that Schmidt was better than Murphy even in Murphy's six best seasons, but I don't think arguing on behalf of Murphy is unreasonable. Career-wise, it's no question, but then, career-wise, Schmidt is the greatest third baseman in baseball history.

[Froback]

Even if you say Murphy was #2 behind Schmidt, so what you are saying only 1 NL player in the 80s deserves a place in the HOF?

Entries into the Hall should be compared vs the people they played against to help gauge them as much as you should against other HOF members.  Afterall 35 HR seasons meant a heck of alot more in the 80s then in the 90s.

In the 80s Murphy was one of the top hitters in all of baseball.  I think he is dismissed for both where he played (or didn't) and the fact that he couldn't sustain it.  That was why I used Koufax.  Sandy was incredible for a few years, but I fail to see why people are willing to ignore his lack of longevity when so many other players like Murphy are short-changed.

I think he should be in the HOF, but it I don't think he is a slam-dunk.  What bothers me is how easily people pass over him.

[mihoba]

Quote:
Sandy was incredible for a few years, but I fail to see why people are willing to ignore his lack of longevity when so many other players like Murphy are short-changed.
 

Got Rings?

Koufax has three, along with a 0.95 ERA in 57 World Series innings.

[JimR]

why did Koufax quit pitching? was it because, like Murphy, he just was not good any more?

[mihoba]

Quote:
I think he is dismissed for both where he played (or didn't) and the fact that he couldn't sustain it.

I think he should be in the HOF, but it I don't think he is a slam-dunk.  What bothers me is how easily people pass over him.

I'm sorry, but if they vote in a .265 hitting outfielder with 398 career home runs on a losing club, something is wrong with the system.

Hall of Fame, in my opinion, is about career achievement, not peak achievement.

Koufax may have had a short span, but he is a rare example of complete domination (including the World Series) of his last few campaigns before an injury shortened his career.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Even if you say Murphy was #2 behind Schmidt, so what you are saying only 1 NL player in the 80s deserves a place in the HOF?

This doesn't follow from what's been said. What was pointed out is that Murphy was very close to Schmidt in terms of his hitting over Murphy's six best years. That doesn't translate into him being one of two National League players from the '80s who should be enshrined. The argument isn't any different from Don Mattingly's, who was one of the best players in the American League for a number of years in the '80s but also came up short. However good Murphy was for those six seasons, it's still a relatively short period of greatness.

Quote:
Entries into the Hall should be compared vs the people they played against to help gauge them as much as you should against other HOF members.  Afterall 35 HR seasons meant a heck of alot more in the 80s then in the 90s.

In the 80s Murphy was one of the top hitters in all of baseball.  I think he is dismissed for both where he played (or didn't) and the fact that he couldn't sustain it.

I don't think anybody would argue that Murphy shouldn't be in Cooperstown if he'd played at that level for three or four more seasons. Of course, he'd probably have hit 500 home runs if he'd played three of four more seasons of the same caliber. This has nothing to do with whether Murphy was great in his prime. It has to do with how long he sustained his excellence.

Quote:
That was why I used Koufax.  Sandy was incredible for a few years, but I fail to see why people are willing to ignore his lack of longevity when so many other players like Murphy are short-changed.

I think he should be in the HOF, but it I don't think he is a slam-dunk.  What bothers me is how easily people pass over him.

I don't think Koufax establishes the rule that greatness over a short period should be enough for the Hall of Fame. I think Koufax establishes the exception to the rule that greatness over a short period shouldn't be enough for the Hall of Fame.

Someone advocating for Murphy would need to be able to explain why Murphy is entitled to the rare exception that Koufax got. Murphy was among a handful of great players in his prime. Koufax was by far the dominant pitcher in baseball, and put together one of the best streaks ever in his prime.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
why did Koufax quit pitching? was it because, like Murphy, he just was not good any more?

Something about a grapefruit and an elbow, if I recall correctly.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Hall of Fame, in my opinion, is about career achievement, not peak achievement.

It can be about both or either, but the peak achievement has to last more than five or six years, barring something absolutely historic about the player's performance.

[BizidyDizidy]

When is Brady Anderson up for the hall of fame? Say what you want about sustaining his excellence but he was without a doubt either the best or second best player of the 1996's.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Quote:

I don't think anybody would argue that Murphy shouldn't be in Cooperstown if he'd played at that level for three or four more seasons. Of course, he'd probably have hit 500 home runs if he'd played three of four more seasons of the same caliber. This has nothing to do with whether Murphy was great in his prime. It has to do with how long he sustained his excellence.

Perhaps if Murphy would have had the misfortune to have a devastating career ending disease after is 12th season, like the late Kirby Puckett, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But he didn't, so he isn't given the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps if Puckett had remained healthy and his career took a nose dive statistically after his 12th season, and he stuck around for an extra six mediocre years, he would have not been voted into the HOF.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Perhaps if Murphy would have had the misfortune to have a devastating career ending disease after is 12th season, like the late Kirby Puckett, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But he didn't, so he isn't given the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps if Puckett had remained healthy and his career took a nose dive statistically after his 12th season, and he stuck around for an extra six mediocre years, he would have not been voted into the HOF.

I.e., Don Mattingly vs. Kirby Puckett.

[mihoba]

Quote:

Perhaps if Murphy would have had the misfortune to have a devastating career ending disease after is 12th season, like the late Kirby Puckett, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But he didn't, so he isn't given the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps if Puckett had remained healthy and his career took a nose dive statistically after his 12th season, and he stuck around for an extra six mediocre years, he would have not been voted into the HOF.

Once again, Puckett is a special case, who also happens to have a pair of WS rings. Murphy (or Mattingly) never took his team to the promised land. People tend to underestimate the value of that, IMO, for a "borderline" candidate.

[Sambito]

Don Mattingly deserves real consideration above the numbers,
his skill level was on par with Carew, Gwynn, and all of the great hitters of his era.  One problem, his back gave midway.  Donny Baseball should get more play here, I realize why he doesn't but I am biased.  He was flat out talented.  Does that warrant HOF, evetually it should!

[Sambito]

I am not related to Donny Baseball in anyway!

* The Evansville Press

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Quote:

Quote:

Perhaps if Murphy would have had the misfortune to have a devastating career ending disease after is 12th season, like the late Kirby Puckett, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But he didn't, so he isn't given the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps if Puckett had remained healthy and his career took a nose dive statistically after his 12th season, and he stuck around for an extra six mediocre years, he would have not been voted into the HOF.

Once again, Puckett is a special case, who also happens to have a pair of WS rings. Murphy (or Mattingly) never took his team to the promised land. People tend to underestimate the value of that, IMO, for a "borderline" candidate.

I don't underestimate it at all. Still, WS rings are won by teams and not individuals. A lot of average players have WS rings. By the same taken, I'm not gonna penalize a great player stuck on a shitty team. I'm not denigrating Puckett in any way, I'm saying that Murphy wasn't great over a long enough period of time nor does he merit a special case, with or without WS rings.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Quote:
Don Mattingly deserves real consideration above the numbers,
his skill level was on par with Carew, Gwynn, and all of the great hitters of his era.  One problem, his back gave midway.  Donny Baseball should get more play here, I realize why he doesn't but I am biased.  He was flat out talented.  Does that warrant HOF, evetually it should!

It's not the Hall of Really Good Players.

[Bench]

Quote:

Quote:
Don Mattingly deserves real consideration above the numbers,
his skill level was on par with Carew, Gwynn, and all of the great hitters of his era.  One problem, his back gave midway.  Donny Baseball should get more play here, I realize why he doesn't but I am biased.  He was flat out talented.  Does that warrant HOF, evetually it should!

It's not the Hall of Really Good Players.

Is it the Hall of Really Famous Players? Bob Uecker should be worthy of a first ballot.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Don Mattingly deserves real consideration above the numbers,
his skill level was on par with Carew, Gwynn, and all of the great hitters of his era.  One problem, his back gave midway.  Donny Baseball should get more play here, I realize why he doesn't but I am biased.  He was flat out talented.  Does that warrant HOF, evetually it should!

It's not the Hall of Really Good Players.

Is it the Hall of Really Famous Players? Bob Uecker should be worthy of a first ballot.

It's the Hall of Tourist Attraction that Generates Publicity by Getting People to Debate Whose Head Should be Bronzed and Whose Not.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Once again, Puckett is a special case, who also happens to have a pair of WS rings. Murphy (or Mattingly) never took his team to the promised land. People tend to underestimate the value of that, IMO, for a "borderline" candidate.

I think that's a factor, but I do think a player whose career is all of a sudden ended due to injury may be perceived differently than a player whose career is slowly dehabilited due to injury. I've always thought that's as big a difference between Mattingly and Puckett as the rings.

[Arky Vaughan]

I may be the only person who thinks this is very interesting, but I just noticed that baseball-reference now has splits and game logs for all players from Retrosheet. Anyway, there was always talk about how Dale Muprhy benefited from the Launching Pad in Atlanta. Here's how extreme his career home/road splits were:

Split  Avg   OBP   Slg    PA   HR    R  RBI
-------------------------------------------
Home  .281  .368  .499  4498  217  636  674 
Road  .250  .324  .440  4543  181  561  592