The Hall of Fame voting must be controlled by purveyors of intellect vastly greater than my own. That's the only way I can rationalize almost any result or sample poll -- people smarter than I must be making decisions at a macro-baseball level that I can only dream of. The annual complaints about Dale Murphy's Hall of Fame candidacy will be rolling around again on Wednesday, when the Baseball Writers Association of America reveals its voting for this year's entrants.
Dale Murphy is sure to be fairly low on the list.
The bloggers of SB Nation got together over the last month to conduct a BBWAA-style voting of their own. An event I was hopeful would yield more favorable results for our erstwhile outfielder. To explain my voting (and hopefully sway others) I put up a post where I suggested Hall of Fame candidacy for everyone that fell on or above the "Dale Murphy Line." Assuming, as I do, that Murph and his decadal dominance and accompanying career statistics should be enough to warrant entry into the hallowed Hall, then I would need to vote for everyone else who fell on or above that line (per my assessment -- likely a flawed metric, indeed).
My assessment led to the inclusion of six players, Roberto Alomar, Bert Blyleven, Andre Dawson, Fred McGriff, Mark McGwire, and Dale Murphy.
I thought the blog-based voting that SB Nation conducted would be a bit more partial towards allowing more players into the Hall, but if anything, the bloggers who voted seemed to be even more stingy than the baseball writers. The results of that voting are after the jump. Needless to say, only Bert Blyleven gained entry, and our very own beloved number-3 got just 17.5% of the vote. What! Why are we bloggers so lock-step with the writers?
Totally frustrating. Before we get to the jump and more of my complaints, I thought it would be a fun idea to do a Talking Chop sample Hall of Fame ballot. Follow this link to go to the Google Form and fill out your HOF ballot. I'll keep voting open until Tuesday night, then I'll tally the totals and see if even a Braves-site is partial towards one of its own.
After the jump are the full results of the SB Nation balloting, plus more of my astonishment.
Here are the results:
| Player | % Vote | Total Votes |
| Bert Blyleven | 92.3% | 48 |
| Roberto Alomar | 73.1% | 38 |
| Barry Larkin | 63.5% | 33 |
| Tim Raines | 53.8% | 28 |
| Mark McGwire | 51.9% | 27 |
| Edgar Martinez | 48.1% | 25 |
| Alan Trammell | 40.4% | 21 |
| Andre Dawson | 32.7% | 17 |
| Lee Smith | 26.9% | 14 |
| Fred McGriff | 25.0% | 13 |
| Dale Murphy | 17.3% | 9 |
| Jack Morris | 13.5% | 7 |
| Don Mattingly | 11.5% | 6 |
| Harold Baines | 7.7% | 4 |
| Dave Parker | 3.8% | 2 |
| Kevin Appier | 3.8% | 2 |
| Ellis Burks | 1.9% | 1 |
| Ray Lankford | 1.9% | 1 |
| Shane Reynolds | 1.9% | 1 |
| Not receiving votes: Andres Galarraga, Pat Hentgen, Mike Jackson, Eric Karros, David Segui, Robin Ventura, Todd Zeile | ||
I just can't wrap my head around guys like Martinez, and even Larkin, getting more votes than Murphy. The fact that Alomar didn't make it is also a bit shocking, but also shocking that Larkin came so close. Larking was good, but he wasn't great! He had a few good years, especially for a shortstop, but he was wildly inconsistent and frequently injured. He only played 140 or more games seven times in his 19-year career. Murphy had nine consecutive years of playing 150 or more games, including a stretch of four years where he played in every single Atlanta Braves game. Barry Larkin is NOT a Hall of Famer.
Ugh! I could go on and on about this, but what's the point. No one outside of the South remembers what kind of player Murphy was or how he dominated the 80's. He was second in homeruns to Mike Schmidt, second in RBI to Eddie Murray, ahead of both of those guys and behind only Ricky Henderson, Robin Yount, and Dwight Evans in runs scored, all of that while likely being the most durable player of the decade by playing in the most games. His rate stats too were comparable with the Hall of Famers from that decade.
Make sure you vote, and we'll see what Atlanta fans think. Maybe in the end I will be proven the vastly inferior intellect by even my own readers.
0 recs | 43 comments
10-4 - January 4, 2010
pnwd in the first sentence.
gondeee - January 4, 2010
I tend to be stingier about who goes in the HOF than the writers
but they kept Sutton out, and I totally disagreed with that, so who knows.
I have a level in my head of “good” and “great” and if a player never struck me as great then I won’t put him in, unless he had a LOT of good years together.
Under that reasoning I’d put Lee Smith in, also considering how he changed the closer position. I wouldnt put Jack Morris in because of his ERA. I can’t put McGwire in for cheating. I’d put in Edgar though.
DrB - January 4, 2010
am i the only one who has a problem with leaving mcgwire out for "cheating"?
the only thing we know for sure that he did was andro and it wasnt against the rules at the time..i just have a hard time screaming someone is a cheater when we have no concrete evidence.
if we’re going to leave people out simply bc we suspect it, then no one who played from 1990 to now should ever get in…i doubt that is going to happen.
Doghnut - January 4, 2010
i think players should be in based on what they did and then we have a big friggin star or room dedicated to explaining why nbrs are skewed across generations… one explaining how black players didnt play early on so many greats werent in teh majors… another explaining why the early 60s the rules were geared to help pitchers and how in the mid 90s the rules were geared to help hitters and some players used performance enhancers. McGwire should be in for what he did in his playing days his performance was clearly HoF worthy, but we dont know the extent drugs lead to that performance and we don’t know how many others were really using and how much it affected those that used…. so theres no sense keeping players out who may deserve to be in based on their performance bc they were cheaters (mostly cause we just dont know how much performance enhancers affected the game, remember expansion and rule changes alsodiluted pitching)
Swo12bv - January 4, 2010
I like Murphy, but have been borderline on him in the HOF. He was just short of the 400 homers that seems to be needed for an OF to make it. His BA isn’t great (I know, I know, going with what they would look at). I think if he had a couple more seasons of dominance, that would have placed him in.
Edgar Martinez had a career BA of over 3.00 and OPS over .900! While he was mainly a DH, I don’t think we should discredit his stats…after all, the DH is a legal position.
I’d vote Andre Dawson in too…over 400 homers, .806 lifetime OPS, and 314 stolen bases.
ChrisK562 - January 4, 2010
Edgar Martinez
One of the best two strike hitters the game has ever seen.
Mountngrown - January 4, 2010
anyone who doesnt think Edgar deserves to be in bc he was a DH is crazy… the guy could absolutely rake. ditto goes for the Big Hurt
Swo12bv - January 4, 2010
is the DH a legal position?
the rules of baseball state that the game is played with 9 players vs. 9 players. The DH makes it…10 players playing at a time…bada bing, bada boom
BravesRaleigh - January 4, 2010
And if DH weren't an option...
wouldn’t someone have found room for his bat somewhere, in LF, 1B, or 3B?
Mr. Sanchez - January 4, 2010
This poster alone should get him in!
10-4 - January 4, 2010
ugh, this crap is getting old.
10-4 - January 4, 2010
good pic tho
Doghnut - January 4, 2010
I love that poster...
I see it often.
Mr. Sanchez - January 4, 2010
If I actually had a vote that matters
Blyleven is in, so is Alomar. I’d give serious consideration to Dawson, probably adding him as well, and for some reason I have a soft spot for Rock Raines. I never got to watch Murphy play until the tail end of his career, but from what I gathered he just didn’t do it for a long enough period of time.
Edgar is a tough one for me. I hate the DH personally, so anyone who played almost his entire career being a “steady batter” has to put up Ruthian numbers for me to consider him worthy for the Hall. I could be wrong, which I am more often than not, but I just can’t see him making it this year. Maybe in a really weak year when nobody else has a chance he gets in, but I’ve always had the view point of “you’re either a HOFer or not.”
bpk228480 - January 4, 2010
even though he may have been the best DH ever… i understnad not liking the DH, and its a reasonable position you are tkaing, a DH should have better numbers.
Swo12bv - January 4, 2010
That's more or less my position on Martinez.
To me, DH’s can get in, but that have to have better numbers, because defense counts. Taking everything into consideration, I think Martinez falls just short. On the other hand, when he becomes eligible, I think Frank Thomas should be in. He just was better than Martinez and did it for a longer period of time. Thomas’s peak was also significantly better than Martinez’s—Thomas went seven full seasons in a row with an OPS+ of 174 or higher. That’s just sick.
cavebird - January 4, 2010
They can treat it like closers....
the best of the best, like Ecks and others make it. So Eckersley in, Lee Smith out. Rivera in, Troy Percival and John Wetteland out.
So for DH, Martinez and Thomas in, Thome and others out.
Mr. Sanchez - January 4, 2010
I don't know who to vote for
if it wasn’t for the steriod thing I would vote for Mark Mcwire of course I don’t vote for HOF anyway so who cares what I say about this
southman - January 4, 2010
I do. I care.
ChrisK562 - January 4, 2010
+1
Doghnut - January 4, 2010
I wish people would give Edgar some love.
VivaLosBravos - January 4, 2010
this
Swo12bv - January 4, 2010
Being born and raised in the Northwest I saw a lot of Edgar Martinez’s career. Not that my opinion is worth much but I think he deserves the HOF. I know he was a DH (and I am not a fan of the DH) but he was a great hitter who was even better in the clutch. It used to amaze me to watch how comfortable he was hitting with two strikes and how many hits he collected with two strike counts.
Mountngrown - January 4, 2010
gondee, fwiw...
…I think you undercut the force of your HOF arguments by insisting on some very iffy propositions:
1. Raines shouldn’t be in while Dawson should. There just isn’t any particularly good statistical way to justify this other than using straight career number counts which aren’t a particularly good argument (and also undercuts your case for Murphy). Raines was simply a better player than Dawson and your failure to acknowledge this hurts the credibility of your arguments. To justify not including Raines, you stated that he was one-dimentional, implying that the dimention was stolen bases. In doing so, you completely ignored that Raines had a great OBP, had reasonable power for a lead-off hitter, and managed a .810 OPS and 123 OPS+ over more than 10,000 plate appearances, all while playing pretty good defense. Your reliance on Raines’s failure to score runs is equally silly—-all it tells us is that Raines played on bad teams in his prime (although he still managed to score 1571 runs in his career). Basically, your argument against Raines is unsupported and pretty absurd. It is so weak it undercuts the credibility of your other arguments.
2. Your insistence that Martinez is obviously inferior to Murphy. Martinez over 8672 plate appearances put up a line of: .312/.418/.515 .933 OPS, 147 OPS+. Murphy over 9040 plate appearances put up a line of: .265/.346/.469 .815 OPS, 121 OPS+. That is a huge difference in Martinez’s favor. Now, Murphy played good defense in center field for most of his career, while Martinez was a bad third baseman and then a DH, and does account for some of the difference in value. Personally, I see them relatively equal, both on the outside looking in. However, to act like you can’t see why anyone would favor Martinez to Murphy shows that you are wearing blinders. Martinez’s superior hitting over his career is blatantly obvious.
3. Your insistence that Larkin is obviously inferior to Murphy. Larkin’s slash lines were very similar to Murphy’s and Larkin had a slightly lower OPS+ due to playing in more favorable hitter’s parks. I consider Larkin close and just worthy while Murph is on the other side of the line. Why? Because Larkin played shortstop pretty well, and that is one of the toughest defensive positions on the diamond. And to your criticism that Larkin was always hurt, please not that he actually posted 17 more career plate appearances than Murphy.
Beyond this, I refer you to the very long post I made to your previous HOF thread. You never responded to that post or acknowledged the arguments that I raised in that thread. (FWIW, I that thread I put Murph in based upon pure emotion even though I couldn’t justify it. Your whines have led me to let my objective stance hold sway.) It is a bit annoying that you don’t explain or counter arguments contrary to your position, but have now written a whining post about how voters aren’t agreeing with you. You state that your intellect may prove to be vastly inferior to the voters or your own readers, but since you don’t appear to read, acknowledge, or counter even well thought out and explained counters to your points in the posts, how could this ever happen?
cavebird - January 4, 2010
You seem to be getting caught up in slash stats while ignoring some others. That’s fine, I probably get caught up in the stats that make my case and ignore others. I accept that Murphy’s slash stats are a weak point of his credentials, but it seems that there is a bar set for the HOF that includes homeruns and hits for batters and wins and strikeouts for pitchers, all other stats seemed to be looked at in a lesser light.
I revisited the notion of decadal dominance after hearing some MLB network guy talk about Jack Morris’ creds for the Hall, as he was someone who dominated most of the pitching stats of the 80s. When I went to look at the raw totals for hitters in the 80s I was not surprised to see Murphy up there with other HOFers.
Look, the argument for or against is completely subjective, that’s why I talk about needing intellect to make this decision in a tongue and cheek way. I know there is subjectivity to the whole process. There are two truths to Murphy’s hall candidacy, though, (1) if he had 2 more homeruns for a grand total of 400, he’d have a better chance for some round-number reason, and (2) if he played for the Yankees, Cubs, or Red Sox he’d be in.
I’ll answer some of your other questions later if I have time. I by no means meant to dodge your other post, I likely just didn’t see it or didn’t get back to it. And yes, I will continue to fucking whine about Murphy not being in the Hall for as long as I have a blog to whine on… and then after that I’ll whine privately.
gondeee - January 4, 2010
Here's where I don't get your logic.
You state that “it seems that there is a bar set for the HOF that includes homeruns and hits for batters and wins and strikeouts for pitchers, all other stats seemed to be looked at in a lesser light.” But then you act as this is a given and that it should not be criticized if it is wrong—-a position that both I (for reasons that are obvious from my posts, especially my comments on Raines v. Dawson) and you (given your vehement support for Murphy when those stats don’t particularly help him, especially hits vis-a-vis Mattingly) I would think we would both support.
I am not particularly wedded to the slash stats, just to the performance behind the slash stats. OBP is important because it involves getting hits and walks and not making outs, not because it is some magical number. Yes, I know HOF voters traditionally overvalue certain stats and undervalue others. I will happily concede they are idiots. If I was predicting who will get in as opposed to who should get in, it would be a very different list.
You are right that Murph would do better if he got the 400 HR. I don’t think it would be enough to get him in, but it would be enough to up his vote totals significantly. That, of course, shows the silliness of the process. Not sure about your comment regarding the Yankees, Cubs, and Red Sox. Mattingly has a very similar resume and was Mr. Yankee, but hasn’t sniffed admission. On the other hand, Rice seemed to make it on a weak resume. Honestly, maybe you are right there—-Mattingly’s lack of support despite being a Yankee seems to be the outlier.
As for decadal dominance, I am not sure about your point here—-do you think it less important now or not? I guess I find it silly because I don’t see how being great from 1980-1989 is any different from being great from 1975-1984.
cavebird - January 4, 2010
Also, saying Murphy "dominated the 80's" is a stretch.
He had an amazing peak from 1982-87 and a good season in 1980. The entire rest of his career was average or worse. Yes, having six great and one good year that happen to fall within the same decade will put you near the top of the leaderboard for counting stats for that decade, does that make you a better player than a guy who did the exact same thing but started five years earlier and hence spanned two “decades”? Not at all. Murph’s candidacy and career are what they are. An incredible peak with weak career numbers for the Hall of Fame because he only had seven good or better seasons. To take six great years and say that this means he dominated a decade is stretching. It means he had six great seasons.
I know some people more highly value peak than career in HOF voting, and there is certainly a logic for it. The people who I think would/should vote for Murph are the extreme peak people who care little about career numbers. If you are one of them, that’s great a logical, but put it that way, not with completely subjective arguments like Murphy was “great” while Larkin was merely “good.” Also, be consistent—-if you are an extreme peak guy, why would you put McGriff in, but dismiss Mattingly’s candidacy. (And dispite your insistence to the contrary, the candidacy’s of Mattingly and Murph are incredibly similar—-both rely upon a very strong six-year peak. Mattingly’s overall hitting was better, but Murph played a tougher defensive position, so the rest seems a wash as well.) Or at least explain why you aren’t in ways that make a lot more sense than what you have already posted.
cavebird - January 4, 2010
would u say Juan Gonzalez dominated the 90s… his numbers are similar to Murphy and he sustainded it for a year or two more… he played a porous LF, but his consistency and superior hitting leaves them about equal.
Swo12bv - January 4, 2010
Yes, I would...
maybe not “dominated”, but he was certainly one of the premier power hitters of the decade (likely aided of course, but then they all seem to be).
Mr. Sanchez - January 4, 2010
Hmmm...
…I post those posts, then I try to vote in gondees poll and when I vote, it tells me something bad happened, as if my vote did not get tabluated. :(
FWIW, gondee, if my vote does not go through, I voted: Blyleven, Larkin, Alomar, McGriff, and Raines.
cavebird - January 4, 2010
Something bad happened to me too
I went Blyleven, Martinez, Alomar, Raines, McGriff, and Murphy.
alligatorimpersonator - January 4, 2010
Me too. Google fail.
ChrisK562 - January 4, 2010
It looks like the silly form lost all the responses. There were some this morning, but now there are none. I’ll tinker tonight and hopefully get it fixed. Arrrggghh!
gondeee - January 4, 2010
I love Dale Murphy....
but he has about as much chance of getting in the HOF as the Jets have of making the playoffs. Oh, wait…..
Buddy Holly - January 4, 2010
Rookie Card Test
My HOF ballet goes back to my baseball card collecting test:
Would I have been excited to pull one of their cards in a pack?
The answer for most of those guys (except McGwire) is a big fat no, and, so, McGwire passes the test easily. If it is an expensive pack, then Roberto Alomar and Andre Dawson sneak in… maybe McGriff, but I have a soft spot for him, so it is hard to tell.
Given that big Mac is a roider may be an exception to the pass/fail test, but the initial test on almost all of these guys is a fail. Sorry, but Dale Murphy is simply not a HOF player, and Edgar Martinez only participated in 50% of what should be required to play baseball.
Kelly's Big Johnson - January 4, 2010
But I guess Ben Sheets and Gregg Jefferies make your list…
gondeee - January 4, 2010
and ben grieve, troy glaus, and jd drew…….yes, ben grieve
BravesRaleigh - January 4, 2010
Absolutely not.
Kelly's Big Johnson - January 4, 2010
But Gregg Jefferies...
…the next Mets stud, was the rookie card to have back in the day. I remember that very well.
cavebird - January 4, 2010
Anyone from the 1991 Stadium Club inserts, whose special name escapes me.
10-4 - January 5, 2010
Martin,
You’re plenty smart enough to assess hall of fame candidacy. In fact, you’re a better baseball mind than most of the writers actually voting.
Personally, I’ve never enjoyed the whole HoF discussion. I’m either apathetic or lazy, can’t decide which.
PWHjort - January 5, 2010 via mobile
Another Google fail
Chalk me up for Blyleven, Murphy, Dawson, Alomar, Martinez.
J-Freak - January 5, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Talking Chop to post a comment.