Murphy’s an interesting case; he did all that, but he did almost nothing outside of that decade (his 1979 was pretty good; he was terrible in the '90s, and in '88 and '89 for that matter). I actually think he would have had a better chance if he’d suffered some sort of career-ending injury in '88.
It probably also didn’t help him that the Braves were only good for a couple years of his peak, and were mediocre to terrible for the rest of it.
Murph’s biggest issues are that his ballpark helped his stats quite a bit, and that his defense, while decent, wasn’t close to stellar (Gold Gloves aside), and that he really doesn’t have much of anything (as in virtually nothing) outside of that 1980-1987 peak. If the peak was better, he might have a better argument.
Murphy was better than Morris.
What are the chances that nobody gets in again next year? I really imagine that the voters were trying to make a point. Will they continue to make it in the future even if it is tarnishing good players who didn’t cheat?
Also baseball has, in the past, used the *. Any chance that Bonds and Clemens get in with an *? They were great ball players no doubt, but what they did needs to noted in how it may have been achieved.
RickJay made a solid case that it’s not likely. If they won’t vote for Greg Maddux and for that matter Tom Glavine, who are they going to vote for?
There’s no procedure for that as far as I know. The asterisk for Maris was really shameful and unfair.
Are you guys talking about the same thing? Because the Roger Maris asterisk is just an oft-perpetuated urban myth.
I thought it did happen briefly, but you’re right that it didn’t. On the other hand Ford Frick did say it should happen, and that was just as unfair:
The reason this didn’t go anywhere is that there was no official record book and the people who did make the record books didn’t listen to Frick. Still, that’s quite a feat- extend the schedule and then cheapen a player’s accomplishment because he hits more home runs with more games to play and isn’t as popular as Babe Ruth.
Suggestion for the SDMB 2014 ballot: Since our votes and $3 will get you a cup of coffee, allow more than 10 votes.
FWIW, the *Guinness Book of World Records *listed Ruth and Maris’ records separately for many years. They did not use an asterisk per se; they just listed two records, one for a 162-game schedule and one for a 154-game schedule.
ETA: and to follow up on RickJay’s comments, it will indeed be a crying shame if voters lump Frank Thomas in with the steroid users and leave him out next year. If they do not vote Maddux in, the whole system will be due for reform.
Maddux and Glavine will get in, because as well all know pitchers did not use steroids. It was only the home run hitters that did.
How do you know *they *were clean? Or anybody else, for that matter?
Morris, at his best, finished 3rd in Cy Young voting twice. Murphy won NL MVP 2 years in a row. Morris was very good at his peak. Murphy was great.
Yes. It is known.
Well, using that argument, Juan Gonzalez deserves induction. Frankly, there’s not much difference between the two. Can’t see myself supporting either.
5 Gold Gloves. No suspicion of steroid use. 2 big differences.
I agree. Murphy at his peak was great. The problem is his peak only lasted until he was 31 after which his productivity suddenly dropped sharply. If you look at the offensive stats for most HOF players, you’ll notice their productivity gradually declined until they retired around age 40 or so. Because of this, these players were able to steadily build-up their career hitting stats and pass the necessary milestones (e.g., 500 home runs or 3,000 hits) that made HOF selection a sure thing. Murphy, unfortunately, was not able to do this and struggled for six seasons until he was out of baseball at age 37. Murphy’s lifetime .265 BA doesn’t help his case either.
Of course, this raises the interesting argument as to whether it’s really all that meritorious to hang around until you’re 40. A lot of Hall of Famers were pretty bad at the end of their careers.
Murphy isn’t in the Hall of Fame because he just wasn’t that great. He was an very good ballplayer, but his peak was not absolutely stellar. He won two MVP Awards because he led the league in RBIs, not because he was actually the best player in the league.
According to Baseball Reference, Murphy had 5 years with a WAR over 5, and his peak was 7.4. That’s very good but not only is it inferior to most Hall of Famers, it’s not really even all that impressive among serious candidates. That isn’t any better than Dave Stieb, for instance, who nobody thinks should be in the Hall. It isn’t any better than Graig Nettles.
The question remains, during his 8-year peak, there were how many greater? And are all of them in the Hall?
:rolleyes: I’ll bet it doesn’t say that anywhere on his trophies.