Murphy should get more votes than Dawson

[WilsonC]

I suppose an alternate approach is to compare him directly to his contemporaries at the position each year, to see how he stood out relative to the competition. My data's mostly from Baseball Prospectus. A summary of some of the terminology listed here:

VORP - Value Over Replacement Level - An offensive rating of how many runs a player created relative to a replacement-level player. Adjusted for position, so he is being compared to other CF, but does not evaluate defensive quality.
Rank - Where his VORP ranks among players of his position
Leader - The top VORP for his position
WARP3 - Wins Above Replacement Player (adjusted for era) - A metric that combines the player's contributions on both offense and defense compared to a replacement level player. It basically combines BRAR and FRAR ( batting and fielding runs above replacement ) and converts that to wins based on the context of the era.

I'm using VORP as the main measuring tool as it's the most accessible in sortable format. In his top years, I'll also investigate how his WARP compares with his competition, to account for fielding.

1976-1978 were a couple cups of coffee, and a rookie season as a fringe frist-baseman, so we'll skip to 1979:

Year...G.....AB....BA....OBP...SLG...Pos...VORP... Rank...Leader...WARP3
1979: 104 384 .276 .340 .469 1B 17.7 16 63.1 1.5
He hit alright in 1979, though nowhere near the leaders at firstbase. Keith Hernandez was easilly the top at the position. Murphy was also ranked as a terrible defensive firstbaseman. His first half-decent season, but not a significant season for a HoF portfolio.

1980: 156 569 .281 .349 .510 CF 41.8 5 59.3 9.1
Al Bumbry had a career year that year to top the VORP charts in CF. Bumbry also had a fine defensive year, giving him a 10.3 WARP. Of the other 3 ranked ahead of him, Mickey Rivers and Cesar Cedeno didn't match him defensively, and Dawson was about even with Murphy overall. Chet Lemon and Fred Lynn were both close to Murphy offensively, but Lynn missed time and Lemon didn't compare defensively. Overall, he's about even for second or third that year.

1981: 104 369 .247 .325 .390 10.7 9 47.8 4.1
Dawson was in a tier of his own in the strike shortened year. Murphy had an off year, and wound up in a cluster of mid-tier CF. He was also the second best D. Murphy that year, as Dwayne Murphy doubled Dale's VORP. Did nothing for his HoF credentials.

1982: 162 598 .281 .378 .507 48.5 1 48.5 10.1
The first year where Murphy takes the top VORP spot in CF, barely edging out Dawson. Dawson and Lynn were both in the same class as Murphy that year, both offensively and defensively, but Murphy's durability wins out. He comes out ahead of both in VORP and WARP.

1983: 162 589 .302 .393 .540 67.7 1 67.7 10.2
Probably Murphy's best year as a CF, and the one year where he's in his own class as a CF. Dawson and Lynn (who again missed time) remain among his closest competitors, with Moseby entering into the picture as well. Both offensively and defensively Murphy is on top that year, with a noteable lead in VORP and WARP.

1984: 162 607 176 .290 .372 .547 56.2 2 62.8 9.7
Tim Raines enters into the picture now, taking the top spot in his only season as a CF. His defense wasn't as good as Murphy's. Moseby, the third place VORP, had the top fielding metrics of the three. They come out remarkably close in WARP3 - all between 9.7 and 9.9 (with Raines on top), so we'll call it a draw for first.

1985: 162 616 185 .300 .388 .539 63.2 3 86.6 9.2
The great Rickey Henderson was a CF that year, and was in a class of his own, with a significant lead in both VORP and WARP. Willie Mcgee had a career year and edged out Murphy for second. Defensively, Murphy's metrics are declining now, so he doesn't make up any ground there. He's comfortably ahead of the next guy, Brett Butler. A solid third-place finish.

1986: 160 614 .265 .347 .477 30.9 7 65.5 5.9
Not a bad year, but not a great year. Puckett and Henderson represent the top tier this year. Yount and Kevin McReynolds are the next tier. Lynn and Dykstra, who were better but played less, and Mitch Webster join Murphy in the third tier. This is his last year as a CF. He helped his team, but didn't do a whole lot toward his HoF credentials. Overall, he ranks 7th,

1987: 159 566 .295 .417 .580 63.5 2 81.6 11.5
Murphy's first year as a RF, and his last year as a good hitter. Gwynn hit .370 to take the top spot quite handilly, and played plus defense to take the top WARP as well. Strawberry and Tartabull were both in Murphy's class in VORP, but as a converted CF, Murphy's defense puts him handilly above both. Dawson, an earlier rival, won the MVP with a big power year, despie being well behind Murphy.

1988-1993: Not really worth breaking down. The offensive standards for a corner are higher, and his performance was much lower. He ranged from serviceable to fringe in his remaining years.

So in all, we have:
- 1 year where Murphy was clearly the best at his position.
- 2 years where a good case can be made for him as the best at his position, but with others in his class.
- 2 years on the level of his best years, but with at least one great player having a clearly better year.
- 1 year where he was a bit below his best years, but still a solid second-tier at his position.
- 1 year where he was a pretty good player, but not among the top at his position.
- 2 years where he was worth having him in the lineup, but didn't do much for his case
- 5 years where he wasn't very good at all
- 4 years at the beginning and end of his career where he didn't play enough to be worth looking at.

Is that resume enough? It's a the resume of a fine player, no doubt, but a HoFer? He did have a few years in the top class at his position, but we also don't see a lot of truly great players mentioned there - it's not like his contemporaries were Mays and Mantle. The few prime seasons where he does go head to head with a true HoFers, Henderson and Gwynn, they blow his best seasons out of the water - and they also had longer peaks. Murphy had some great years at his peak, but nothing stratospheric, and only about a half dozen years near his peak value. It's really largely a matter of where we set the bar, which varies from person to person - he wouldn't be the weakest HoFer out there, but I would generally expect either a higher peak or a longer peak to vote a guy in.

[nanwynnfan]

Checking out defense only for Dale Murphy as a CF, I turned first to my own study on defense [1901-2007] to find "eligibles" as defensive cometitors for Murphy each year he played CF. I then tossed out my ratings and went with Baseball Prospectus defense Ratings, wher a number above 100 means a certain degree above average, under 100 means certain degrees below average. I used BP to avoid bias. Seasons are those in which CF was his position.

Games are B-P presentations derived from innings played at each position in a given season by a player. I believe the following is a fair presenation, which also shows the ins-and-outs of defensive careers, some very fine years, some less so, and always with a new crop of players knocking at the door.

Season.........Player Name............Games........BP Rating

1980..........Dwayne Murphy.........154.6.............103
................Andre Dawson............141.6.............106
................Al Bumbry..................156.5............110
................Omar Moreno..............159.3............111
.................Fred Lynn..................105.3............103
................Amos Otis..................101.3.............104
................Dale Murphy................125.5............110

1981..........Dwayne Murphy.............99.5............110
................Rick Manning................133.8.............99
................Omar Moreno................100.8...........101
................Al Bumbry......................95.6.............94
................Andre Dawson................99.5...........110
................Dale Murphy...................99.2............96

1982..........Andre Dawson...............145.3..........106
.................Dwayne Murphy............144.6..........102
.................Omar Moreno................123.5..........107
.................Al Bumbry.....................130.7..........105
.................Mookie Wilson................147.8..........102
.................Lloyd Moseby.................130.6.........105
.................Dale Murphy..................104.8..........107

1983...........Willie McGee..................140.2..........105
.................Chet Lemon....................139.3.........113
.................Gorman Thomas..............103.2..........102
.................Omar Moreno..................109.5...........95
.................Mookie Wilson.................143.5.........101
.................Lloyd Moseby..................136.9.........101
.................Dale Murphy...................129.3...........98

1984...........Lloyd Moseby..................150.9.........108
.................Mookie Wilson..................139.9.........108
.................Gary Pettis......................105.6.........108
.................Dwayne Murphy................145.9..........99
.................Willie Wilson.....................126.7.........104
.................Willie McGee.....................134.9.........112
.................Chet Lemon......................103.6.........112
.................Kirby Puckett....................126.8.........118
.................Kevin McReynolds..............xxxxx..........103
.................Dale Murphy.....................159.8..........101

1985..........Dwayne Murphy.................144.7...........94
................Willie Wilson.......................138.0.........101
................Willie McGee......................134.9.........100
................Chet Lemon.......................112.4.........105
................Kirby Puckett.....................159.5.........106
................Kevin McReynolds...............147.0.........108
................Brett Butler.......................144.4.........108
................Dale Murphy......................158.0...........94

1986.........Dwayne Murphy....................92.7.........111
...............Willie Wilson........................146.8.........106
...............Willie McGee........................119.6.........101
...............Chet Lemon.........................112.4.........105
...............Brett Butler.........................149.6...........98
...............Robin Yount.........................127.1.........101
...............Barry Bonds.........................105.6.........110
...............Kirby Puckett.......................156.6...........95
...............Dale Murphy.........................152.1..........94

[Triad]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

"od forgive me for the following blasphemy: I could care less how Bill James has CFers rated all time.

I didn't mean to suggest it as an authoritative source, but just as another person's view. I think the idea of Win Shares has the right approach, but the execution still leaves a little to be desired.

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Murphy's reputation with the bat was as a power hitter, playing a position where power has often been regarded as an added bonus, if the guy can also cover the ground.

Ashburn was the template for the lead-off man, as his .396 lifetime OB% indicates he did very, very well.

There should be no head-to-head comarison drawn between a leadoff contact team leader and superb defensive CF against a power-hitting, sold defender given to ups and downs, with a great propensity for "whiffing."

Can't we get a good clue about their overall production by looking at their R and RBI, or even RC? (while taking them in the context of team and league)

After all, we already know that power hitters are quite a bit more valuable than singles hitters. Name the greatest singles hitters you can think of, and tell me where they rank among their position. I don't think you'll find many in the top 5.

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Defensively, Ashburn was not a very good or excellent CF, he was superb.

I would rate him as the best fielding CF in history.

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

He was the best bunter in the game; and he swiped bases at a 72% success rate. He was a magnificent contact hitter as well, always putting the ball in play and was almost impossible to double up.

Why isn't all this value borne out in his run production then?

I don't think Ashburn's style of play defines a great center fielder. Among all the greatest CF, there were hardly any slap hitters.

Mays, Cobb, Mantle, Speaker, DiMaggio, Griffey Jr., Snider
Wynn, Pinson, Dawson, Murphy, B. Williams, Puckett, R. Smith, Oliver

Originally Posted by WilsonC

So in all, we have:
- 1 year where Murphy was clearly the best at his position.
- 2 years where a good case can be made for him as the best at his position, but with others in his class.
- 2 years on the level of his best years, but with at least one great player having a clearly better year.
- 1 year where he was a bit below his best years, but still a solid second-tier at his position.
- 1 year where he was a pretty good player, but not among the top at his position.
- 2 years where he was worth having him in the lineup, but didn't do much for his case
- 5 years where he wasn't very good at all
- 4 years at the beginning and end of his career where he didn't play enough to be worth looking at.

Is that resume enough? It's a the resume of a fine player, no doubt, but a HoFer?

By my estimation, he makes the grade. My system is to heavily weigh individual seasons of high output, however not so much that players like Don Mattingly, Dwight Gooden or Bret Saberhagen get too much credit. I think the basic template for a HOF career is something like this:

A. 6-7 excellent seasons, near the top of their position
B. ~5 good seasons, near the average
C. 5-6 substandard or incomplete seasons

Of those subsets, A should carry the most weight in measuring someone's value. B has some value. And C has no bearing on the equation at all.

People tend to want to include C, and then also treat B on the same level as A.

I would rate them about this way:

A - 80%
B - 20%
C - 0%

That's why it was painfully clear by this method that Rickey Henderson was a first-tier Hall of Famer even ten years before he retired, and he had unspectacular career numbers at that point. He had already fulfilled A, and most of B. Pretty much everything in his final ten years was just unspectacular padding that didn't really add to his value.

Or it's also how we can already determine that ARod is the second greatest shortstop in history, even though he's only 31.

And so Murphy fulfilled A to a significant degree. And he fulfilled a decent portion of B. Whatever he did in C is immaterial. So then, what other CF between Mays and Griffey Jr. can we say this about?

People have a mistaken notion that since a great career often goes 18-20 years, that a player is only great if he was consistently good for pretty much the whole time. But this would be assigning too much weight to B. Some players actually do have more than ~5 B seasons, and it's this that impresses people, because a couple extra B seasons, and you can reach 3000 hits, 500 HR, 300 W, etc. But the problem is that the B seasons don't add a whole lot more to the player's real value. Ten seasons at 110 OPS+ are not as valuable as four seasons at 125 OPS+. (for the average position) Or five seasons at 120 are not as valuable as two seasons at 150. There is a point of diminishing returns, and I'm not suggesting that two or three seasons can define an entire career, but I do believe that the traditional "peak" carries a lot of weight. 6 or 7 of these seasons, along with 3 or 4 better than average seasons is really all that's needed to attain that total value.

Note also that this does not apply in the cases of the upper tier greats, because they often had a dozen or more high-level seasons, and were very consistent.

Ask yourself this: Has Albert Pujols already shown more overall value than any of the other legitimate HOF 1st basemen? He's only played 7 years, but in that time he's done more than Cepeda, Mize, Perez, or Palmeiro, all legitimate in their own right. The difference in their careers is that they have more B and C seasons than Albert, but his A seasons are better than any of theirs.

Originally Posted by WilsonC

He did have a few years in the top class at his position, but we also don't see a lot of truly great players mentioned there - it's not like his contemporaries were Mays and Mantle.

It's kind of a Catch-22. There were no other great CF during his career, so he's viewed as merely a big fish in a little pond. Cobb had Speaker as a contemporary, but DiMaggio didn't have anyone for any length of time. Mays, Mantle and Snider were all together. The only premier CF this leaves is Griffey Jr., so there are lots of gaps throughout history where great CF aren't present.

Originally Posted by WilsonC

The few prime seasons where he does go head to head with a true HoFers, Henderson and Gwynn, they blow his best seasons out of the water.

Neither Henderson or Gwynn were primarily CF, or even very much at all. What's interesting by your year-by-year analysis is that taken as a whole, Murphy outshines all the other lifetime CF on the list, with Dawson close by. I maintain that Murphy was the best CF between the careers of Mays and Griffey Jr. I can see an argument made for Wynn, Dawson, or Puckett, but by my estimation he beats all of them. You'd think the BBWAA could elect more than one CF in the last 27 years.

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

If that's a chunk of a HoF OF career, for a guy better known as a power hitter, well the standards are a far cry from my own.

We have to keep in mind that a center fielder is just a notch beneath the defensive value of second baseman...

C
SS
2B
CF
3B
RF (tie)
LF (tie)
1B
DH

If Murphy were a right fielder, then it would be obvious that he's not HOF material. Same with Puckett. Same with Doby, and Dawson. But they all made a special contribution with their bonus fielding value. We can't look at them the same way we do corner outfielders. They're only a generation away from morphing into second basemen. Note that Jeff Kent is a HOF-type second baseman, but as a third baseman, he wouldn't be.

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Note the years played: they are NOT the anemic 1960s which prompted lowering of the mound and eventually led the AL to opt for the DH rule to put a much-nneeded charge into MLB offense.

This was before the power surge which began around 1993-94. And the '60s had greater HR averages than the '70s.

[nanwynnfan]

OK, so now we've shifted from power vs. contact into a more refined power vs. contact by position expectation. So, I begin my response with a current player, Ichiro Suzuki, befor 2007, a RF.

[An added post script: I apparently did Ashburn a disservice calling him a slap hitter when I might just as well have left it at "contact hitter."

The old-timer in me came out, using "slap," which, in its purest sense, means a guy who makes contact [almost alwyas] and hits the ball where it's pitched. This does NOT mean "banjo hitter" who can barely strike a ball with enough authority to reach the outfield.

Slap hitters can hit with authority, but the spray hits to all fields, sacrificing power for the art of connecting. They'll always hit far more doubles and triples than HR; but here it was interpreted as being, somehow, weak.

An old favorite of mine, behind Ted Williams, of course, was Cecil Travis, whom "Sports Illustrated" [at the time] referred to as the best all-around shortstop in MLB in the years immediately preceeding WW II. Ted Williams himself referred to Travis as having a "sweet stroke," and being one of the best natural hitters he'd seen. Travis was a slap, spray, contact hitter, given to line drives and grasscutters, not the long ball.

With that in mind, here are some contact hitters. not primarily known for power, but for contact, liners, high average, etc.].

Now, on to the earlier question of non-power guys in the OF and whether any made any significant contributions overall. So, I include HoF OF players among others, not inducted nor likely to be, who were very fine players. As to the allegation that Joe DiMaggio had no real competition, let's remember there was a little thing called WW II that screwed up a good many young OF careers in or approaching their prime.

All in a lump:

Earl Averill
Tris Speaker
Ty Cobb
Pete Rose
Paul Waner
Lloyd Waner
Dom DiMaggio
Tommy Holmes
Ben Chapman
Mike Kreevich
Dixie Walker
Terry Moore
Earl Combs
Tim Raines
Tony Gwynn
Kirby Puckett
Brett Butler
Amos Otis
Doc Cramer
Max West
Sam West
Barney McCosky
Walt Judnich

[Triad]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Earl Averill
Tris Speaker
Ty Cobb
Pete Rose
Paul Waner
Lloyd Waner
Dom DiMaggio
Tommy Holmes
Sam Chapman
Ben Chapman
Mike Kreevich
Dixie Walker
Terry Moore
Frank Demaree
Earl Combs
Tim Raines
Tony Gwynn
Kirby Puckett
Brett Butler
Amos Otis
Doc Cramer
Max West
Sam West
Stan Spence
Barney McCosky
Walt Judnich

Nice list, nanwynnfan. Of those, it looks like only a few are CF. Most OF either a) can't play CF for any length of time without hurting their team defensively, or b) have someone more qualified on the team to fill the position defensively. I would think most people would say only Cobb, Speaker and Puckett would be worthy of HOF consideration. Puckett had quite a bit of power. Cobb was a big run producer, and he played in the dead ball era. Earl Averill was very good. Otis was a good player as a CF, as was Dom, and Butler wasn't bad.

Here's yet another angle that might be of interest. I've done a study where I try to pick the most dominant player at each position throughout history, with a minimum time frame of three years. This is what I came up with for CF. Number of combined years holding that distinction, if 5 or more, is in parentheses. Note that the player doesn't need to be the best each year of that period, but the best overall for the total period. There are occasionally 1 or 2-year gaps where no one stood out. I begin with 1888, because prior to that season, the rules were drastically different, and the pitching distance was substantially less.

[*-HOFers]

1890-1898 ... *Billy Hamilton (9)
1899-1905 ... Roy Thomas (7)
1907-1922 ... *Ty Cobb (16)
1923-1925 ... *Edd Roush
1926-1930 ... *Hack Wilson (5)
1931-1936 ... *Earl Averill (6)
1937-1942 ... *Joe DiMaggio
1946-1949 ... *Joe DiMaggio (10 total)
1950-1954 ... *Duke Snider (5)
1955-1958 ... *Mickey Mantle
1959-1968 ... *Willie Mays (10)
1971-1973 ... Bobby Murcer
1974-1977 ... Cesar Cedeno
1979-1981 ... Andre Dawson
1982-1987 ... Dale Murphy (6)
1988-1992 ... *Kirby Puckett (5)
1993-1998 ... Ken Griffey Jr. (6)
1999-2002 ... Bernie Williams
2003-2007 ... Carlos Beltran

So, according to this measurment, only five CF in history had a longer sustained period of dominance in CF than Dale Murphy. And two of those (Thomas and Hamilton) go back to the 1800s, when the competition was sparse. Murphy is tied with Earl Averill and Ken Griffey Jr. for 6th with a six-year period of dominance. Tris Speaker had the misfortune of being overshadowed by Ty Cobb, and Mantle would have dominated a while without almost anyone but Mays in the picture.

Notice how nearly every CF up through Mays was elected to the HOF, and then out of the next five, only Puckett was elected. Did we just stop getting good center fielders for twenty years?

I believe Murphy is more deserving than Roush, Averill, Wilson, and Hamilton. Other HOF center fielders who didn't have such a period of dominance to be on this list are Max Carey, Larry Doby, Richie Ashburn, Earle Combs, Hugh Duffy, Elmer Flick, Lloyd Waner and Zack Wheat, none of whom are in Murphy's range except Ashburn.

So if you're better than about half of the 19 players at your position who are in the HOF (not counting Negro Leaguers), doesn't that make you a HOFer?

[nanwynnfan]

"So if you're better than about half of the 19 players at your position who are in the HOF (not counting Negro Leaguers), doesn't that make you a HOFer?"

No.

Besides, you're mixing your standards, or shuffling them over and over, shifting from defense, to offense, to contact to power, until it becomes a dizzying enterprise.

With Murphy, it's none of the above; and your 6 year period of dominance ifor him s more than extravagant.

Ashburn was the dominant defensive CF in MLB for 10 years. Add a .300+ lifetime BA and .396 OB% to that and he deserves 10 seasons. Duke Snider had no such string of dominance when Ashburn is considered for overall play, [especially 1951, 53, 55, and 58].

[Triad]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Besides, you're mixing your standards, or shuffling them over and over, shifting from defense, to offense, to contact to power, until it becomes a dizzying enterprise.

I'm just using various methods. I don't think they're conflicting, are they?

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Ashburn was the dominant defensive CF in MLB for 10 years. Add a .300+ lifetime BA and .396 OB% to that and he deserves 10 seasons. Duke Snider had no such string of dominance when Ashburn is considered for overall play, [especially 1951, 53, 55, and 58].

If you look at Snider's RC and OPS for 1951-1955 compared to Ashburn, it's difficult to say that Ashburn was the dominant CF.

You had mentioned that Ashburn played in a lower offensive era than Dale Murphy, but the NL league OPS for Ashburn's career was .747, while for Murphy the league average was .732. Next we'll look at their teams.

Murphy and Ashburn played essentially the same number of games. Murphy drove in about 600 more runs, and Ashburn scored about 100 more runs. Murphy's teams were in the top half of the league in scoring three times in his career (min. 100 G). Murphy's teams scored 700 runs three times. Ashburn's teams were in the top half of the league in scoring twice, and scored 700 runs twice, though they were in the 650-700 range a few times. I didn't run the averages, but it doesn't appear Murphy has any advantage in scoring environment.

(I started to take down the year-by-year team totals in R, but when I was almost done, IE crashed on me, but I was able to note the trends of scoring, and they seemed pretty close)

So there's really no excuse for Ashburn as to why his run production was a lot lower than Murphy's. Do you have any good explanation? The only conclusion I can reach is that Ashburn was less valuable than Murphy was. How else can you account for it?

[WilsonC]

Originally Posted by Triad

[*-HOFers]

1890-1898 ... *Billy Hamilton (9)
1899-1905 ... Roy Thomas (7)
1907-1922 ... *Ty Cobb (16)
1923-1925 ... *Edd Roush
1926-1930 ... *Hack Wilson (5)
1931-1936 ... *Earl Averill (6)
1937-1942 ... *Joe DiMaggio
1946-1949 ... *Joe DiMaggio (10 total)
1950-1954 ... *Duke Snider (5)
1955-1958 ... *Mickey Mantle
1959-1968 ... *Willie Mays (10)
1971-1973 ... Bobby Murcer
1974-1977 ... Cesar Cedeno
1979-1981 ... Andre Dawson
1982-1987 ... Dale Murphy (6)
1988-1992 ... *Kirby Puckett (5)
1993-1998 ... Ken Griffey Jr. (6)
1999-2002 ... Bernie Williams
2003-2007 ... Carlos Beltran

So, according to this measurment, only five CF in history had a longer sustained period of dominance in CF than Dale Murphy. And two of those (Thomas and Hamilton) go back to the 1800s, when the competition was sparse. Murphy is tied with Earl Averill and Ken Griffey Jr. for 6th with a six-year period of dominance. Tris Speaker had the misfortune of being overshadowed by Ty Cobb, and Mantle would have dominated a while without almost anyone but Mays in the picture.

Notice how nearly every CF up through Mays was elected to the HOF, and then out of the next five, only Puckett was elected. Did we just stop getting good center fielders for twenty years?

I think Murphy is the top choice for the 1982-1985 range, but he was not particularly close to the top in 1986 and while he was very good in 1987 he was no longer a CF, so he's a good choice for a 4 year run, but 6 years is more than a stretch. 1986-1987 could go to Puckett, or we could squeeze Henderson in there, or split it between Henderson in 1986 and Eric Davis in 1987.

I do think there was a bit of a draught in great CF through the 70's and 80's, but in actuality I think it's more that there was an over-abundance of good CF. With the popularity of the stolen base throughout the 70's and 80's, there there were a lot of very, very fast players in the league. My feeling is that while there were few great centerfielders in this time span, there were lots of plus defensive centerfielders - in fact I would suspect that the overall outfield defense in the 70's and 80's was very strong. Strong enough that the most of the great outfielders who were capable of playing a solid centerfield ended up being pushed to a corner.

If we look at great 'almost centerfielders', as in outfielders who would likely spend much of their career as centerfielders in a different generation, we get Bonds (both father and son) who were pushed to corners by established CF, but held their own defensively in limitted CF playing time. Henderson was a perfectly fine CF when he played there, and Raines and Gwynn likely would have held their own in CF. Winfield was a very good outfielder who could run in his early years, and may have been able to handle CF.

Now, I'm not suggesting that we evaluate any of these guys as centerfielders, because they were corner outfielders for most of their careers - they should be evaluated as good defensive corner outfielders. I am, however, suggesting that there is an apparent shortage of great CF during the 70's and 80's, and that it's not a shortage of CF talent, but rather an abundance of speed/defense-first CF talent. True two-way offense/defense greats are rare, so it's perfectly feasable to think there may not have been any truly great two-way CF between Mays and Griffey, and that some of the great CF outside of the speed-heavy 70's and 80's would have likely played a corner had they played in those two decades.

[nanwynnfan]

This really will be my final shot at taking up the Ashburn-Murphy discussion. Baseball-Reference has a batting stat they used to call RC/27 Outs, which is formulated on runs produced as a function of outs made, reducing outs made over a season to a quotient resulting from dividing total outs by 27.

The whole idea is focused on looking at run production and outs made to project what a team ,comprised SOLELY of this player batting in all nine positions in the batting order, would produce in runs per game, before the outs ran out.

Here are Ashburn and Murphy.

Richie Ashburn & Dale Murphy

Ashburn

1948 21 6.4
1949 22 4.3
1950 23 5.4
1951 24 6.6
1952 25 4.4
1953 26 6.0
1954 27 6.0
1955 28 8.5
1956 29 6.0
1957 30 5.6
1958 31 8.1
1959 32 4.0
1960 33 6.1
1961 34 4.3
1962 35 6.8 +--------------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+
15 Sea. 5.9


Murphy

1976 20 4.5
1977 21 5.3
1978 22 3.4
1979 23 5.4
1980 24 6.4
1981 25 4.3
1982 26 7.0
1983 27 8.1
1984 28 7.0
1985 29 7.8
1986 30 5.9
1987 31 9.1
1988 32 4.0
1989 33 3.7
1990 34 4.2
1991 35 4.2
1992 36 1.0
1993 37 0.6 +--------------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+
18 Sea. 5.7

Now, if we then bear in mind that Ashburn, for 10 years of his career, was the best defensive CF in MLB, saving his team 25-30 defense runs above average per season, we can get a truer idea of the total superiority of his overall team contributions.

Moreover, the same Ashburn showed up each season, not a player with see-saw performance throughout his career.

From me ........ 'nuff said.

[Triad]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

This really will be my final shot at taking up the Ashburn-Murphy discussion. Baseball-Reference has a batting stat they used to call RC/27 Outs, which is formulated on runs produced as a function of outs made, reducing outs made over a season to a quotient resulting from dividing total outs by 27.

I could see a case made for Ashburn there under those terms. The underlying premise would be that a player's best seasons are to be weighed the same as any other season. Personally, I would lean more toward giving greater weight to the better seasons. If we examine RC/27, Murphy has five seasons above 7.0, while Ashburn has only two.

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Now, if we then bear in mind that Ashburn, for 10 years of his career, was the best defensive CF in MLB, saving his team 25-30 defense runs above average per season, we can get a truer idea of the total superiority of his overall team contributions.

How many did Murphy save per season, out of curiosity?

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Moreover, the same Ashburn showed up each season, not a player with see-saw performance throughout his career.

But it's easier to sustain a lower level. It seems to be a trade-off.

Originally Posted by WilsonC

I think Murphy is the top choice for the 1982-1985 range, but he was not particularly close to the top in 1986 and while he was very good in 1987 he was no longer a CF, so he's a good choice for a 4 year run, but 6 years is more than a stretch. 1986-1987 could go to Puckett, or we could squeeze Henderson in there, or split it between Henderson in 1986 and Eric Davis in 1987.

It has to be a minimum period of three years, so if another player was very good for two, but the other year dragged his overall value down below, then that wouldn't cut it. Also, Henderson wasn't a CF long enough. The fact that Murphy was a RF for one of those years wouldn't really matter. It's OK to switch positions, but it's your position of most value for the period. This pattern is pretty much followed for all the players listed, and for all positions. I gave a player the benefit of the doubt on individual seasons that weren't quite among their best, so in Murphy's case, if he'd had a mediocre '87, I probably wouldn't have grouped '86 at all. In looking over Puckett's '86-'87, he's right up there with Murphy. His OPS is just under, and his RC are just under. Puckett's fielding was better, and he had two CF seasons as opposed to Murphy's CF-RF split. So you have a case there.

I do think there was a bit of a draught in great CF through the 70's and 80's, but in actuality I think it's more that there was an over-abundance of good CF. With the popularity of the stolen base throughout the 70's and 80's, there there were a lot of very, very fast players in the league. My feeling is that while there were few great centerfielders in this time span, there were lots of plus defensive centerfielders - in fact I would suspect that the overall outfield defense in the 70's and 80's was very strong. Strong enough that the most of the great outfielders who were capable of playing a solid centerfield ended up being pushed to a corner.

That's an interesting theory, Wilson. It makes sense. I'm going to keep an eye on this idea. If you've got more theories surrounding this, let me know.

Of the outfielders elected to the HOF in the last 27 years, Gwynn got heavier in the second half of his career, and would not have made it there. Perhaps in his younger years.

Winfield I doubt would have been there very long, because he was a big man with a strong arm, so you'd want him in right. And his gait seemed a little more labored than a big man like Murphy's was. It's interesting the Hall of Fame web site lists Winfield as a left fielder. I guess they don't care much about seasonal value at each position.

Reggie Jackson? Next.

Carl Yastrzemski? He was a fine fielding outfielder, but not near enough speed to play center.

Willie Stargell? He wasn't even a good fielding left fielder.

Billy Williams? Don't know much about his fielding or speed. He doesn't stand out as a center field type.

Lou Brock? He was a poor fielder. Center field would've been a disaster.

Hank Aaron? He could've done it most of his career. Bill Bruton was the Braves center fielder Aaron's first six years. Then Gino Cimoli for one year, then Aaron, then Lee Maye for two years. Aaron was probably more comfortable in right after a while, and just wanted to stay there.

Frank Robinson? Doesn't strike me as the agile center field type. Plus his arm was more valuable in right.

I do like your overall theory, but it doesn't seem to apply to the very top rung of outfielders.

* * * * * * * * * *

I took ten center fielders that we've been discussing and measured the top 20 OPS+ seasons among all of them, and here's how many seasons came out for each:

4 - Murphy
3 - Doby
3 - Wynn
3 - B. Williams
3 - Cedeno
2 - Lynn
2 - Murcer
1 - Puckett
0 - Ashburn
0 - Dawson

That's rather striking. It tells you a lot about the magnitude and length of Murphy's peak. It would seem he had a longer peak than all the rest of these center fielders. Doby, Puckett and Ashburn are in the Hall of Fame, and Dawson's been getting heavy HOF support in recent voting.

So Murphy had more of these top 20 seasons than Puckett, Ashburn and Dawson combined... That's a pretty decent peak.

[nanwynnfan]

"How many did Murphy save per season, out of curiosity?"

By my own metric and study, Murphy has a career best @ +10 and a career worst @ -15 related to average in CF. His career CF = +/- 0.00. My own metric has him about there and Baseball Prospectus puts him at 99, where 100 is average.

Ashbuen has @ 10 seasons where her averaged 25+ above average in CF and a few part-seasons at the end of his career where he was @ 0.00 or slightly below. Net net, Ashburn would be @ 25*10 = 250 minus the tailoff @ -10 = +240 Defense Runs, career, CF. Murphy nets to 0.00 in CF.

Although I haven't gpne back to revisit all teams, season by season for CF between the late '60s and into the '90s, my own study reflects empasis on great speed and glove work in CF during that period, while 1B, 3B, LF, RF all tended to be "power" oriented positions. Some tremendously gifted defensive CF stars during that period, no doubt, with very few renowned power hitters.

[nanwynnfan]

"Nice list, nanwynnfan. Of those, it looks like only a few are CF. Most OF either a) can't play CF for any length of time without hurting their team defensively, or b) have someone more qualified on the team to fill the position defensively."

In truth, all did play CF, although some moved over [like Tommy Holmes, who move to RF because he had a rifle arm]; most were primarily CF ... a few moved after losing years to WW II and/or subsequent injury.

Walt Judnich and Barney Mccosky were outstanding young CF who lost years to the War and came back less than they had been before. McCosky suffered a back injury.

I'm not saying HoF, but who knows what might have been had these guys had their normal career expectations allowed to them?

Point is, the qualify at least as well as Dawson or Murphy and something beyond their control slammed them. Dom DiMaggio is in that crowd as well.

Combs, Speaker and Cobb were CF as well, so your "few" reference is surprising. Lloyd Waner was one of the greatest glove men to play the position, as was War-hit Terry Moore..

[nanwynnfan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

"Moreover, the same Ashburn showed up each season, not a player with see-saw performance throughout his career."

Triad wrote:

"But it's easier to sustain a lower level. It seems to be a trade-off."

.................................................. ..............................................

I just re-read above and have to ask "What lower level?"

You [Triad] keep coming back to power role > contact/average/defense roles as a "given," tot the degree that a mediocre performance, like .250/.320/.440 is just fine so long as 25-30 HR are part of the package.

By that set of values, a .300/.375/.410, especially with only 8-10 HR is a pauper's performance. That's where we are 180 degrees apart in this discussion.