10-11-2007, 03:55 PM
|
#1 (permalink) |
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Oregon
Posts: 240
 |
Murphy should get more votes than Dawson
Andre Dawson could be voted into the Hall of Fame within the next couple years, while Dale Murphy continues to get 10% or less of the votes. Both Murphy and Dawson were center fielders during most of their peak years. Why doesn't Murphy get much Hall of Fame support from the voters?
BBWAA Hall of Fame Voting 1999 Murphy 19% 2000 Murphy 23% 2001 Murphy 18% 2002 Murphy 14%, Dawson 45% 2003 Murphy 11%, Dawson 50% 2004 Murphy 8%, Dawson 50% 2005 Murphy 10%, Dawson 52% 2006 Murphy 10%, Dawson 61% 2007 Murphy 9%, Dawson 57% Reasons Murphy is undervalued... A. He fell short of 400 home runs. Murphy finished with 398, retiring at age 37. Dawson, who had 399 home runs at age 37, played two more seasons as a DH for the Red Sox, and then was a part-time player for the Marlins for two more years. He ended up with 438 homers. Career totals are overemphasized by the voters, as if mop-up seasons at the end of a career meant anything substantial to a player's worth (not to mention subpar seasons in the middle of a career). B. Dawson played six years under the spotlight in Chicago, and won his MVP there. Murphy was living in relative obscurity on the never-say-win Atlanta Braves team before Bobby Cox came on board. Also, Murphy's R and RBI totals were hindered by the low-scoring Braves teams. C. Walks are undervalued. D. Durability is undervalued. Murphy-Dawson comparisons... Top 5 in Runs Scored Murphy 5, Dawson 4 Top 5 in RBI Murphy 5, Dawson 2 Top 5 in HR Murphy 7, Dawson 4 Top 5 in Walks Murphy 4, Dawson 0 (Dawson's career high in walks was 44, while Murphy had 70 or more seven times) 1st in Games Played Murphy 4, Dawson 0 Top 5 in Games Played Murphy 6, Dawson 2 MVP's Murphy 2, Dawson 1 MVP Top-10 finishes Murphy 4, Dawson 4 All-Star Selections Murphy 7, Dawson 8 150 or More Games Played Murphy 12, Dawson 6 Full Seasons Played Murphy 13, Dawson 17 Career Intentional Walks Murphy 159, Dawson 143 Career Batting Average Murphy .265, Dawson .279 Career On-Base Percentage Murphy .346, Dawson .323 Career Slugging Percentage Murphy .469, Dawson .482 Career OPS+ Murphy 121, Dawson 119 OPS+ Seasons of 140 or more Murphy 5, Dawson 2 Murphy: 142, 149, 150, 151, 156 Dawson: 141, 157 OPS+ Seasons of 120 or more Murphy 7, Dawson 8 Career Stolen Bases Murphy 161, Dawson 314 Career Fielding Percentage as OF Murphy .983, Dawson .983 Career Range Factor as OF Relative to League Average Murphy 1.17, Dawson 1.19 Gold Gloves Murphy 5, Dawson 8 ________________________________ Anyone still think Dawson was any better? And the real question is, why this: 2007 HOF Voting Murphy 9%, Dawson 57% What's wrong with this picture? |
|
|
|
10-11-2007, 06:21 PM
|
#2 (permalink) |
|
Hall of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,635
|
Triad, do you also post under the name Mac?
Dawson gets more votes because (a) he played under the spotlight in Chicago for one of baseball's most storied franchises, whereas Murphy toiled in relative obscurity, (b) he had nearly twice as many Gold Gloves as Murphy, (c) he had nearly twice as many stolen bases as Murphy, and (d) only in the last few years have OBA and OPS supplanted batting average as the more important measures of offensive impact. That said, even today, a .265 batting average is simply too low for HOF enshrinement in the absence of glitzy milestones like 500 homeruns or 3,000 hits. Thus, Dawson's higher batting average superficially makes him look better than Murphy - at least to old school voters who stubbornly stick to batting average as the critical offensive metric. Neither player should be enshrined in the Hall of Fame. To quote Grandstander, the Hall should be reserved for the great, not the very good. Last edited by Zen653; 10-11-2007 at 06:25 PM. |
|
|
|
|
10-11-2007, 09:00 PM
|
#3 (permalink) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,579
|
Neither player belongs in the HoF; and it's surprising that these two continue to get support for admission.
Andre Dawson is credited with a 21 season Major League career. -He had 400 or more AB in 16 of those seasons. Of those 16 seasons with >400 AB here are his BA/OB%/SLG for 4 of those 16 seasons. These are not at the tail end of a career of a fading old player. He played though age 41: .253/.299/.442; @ 23 .248/.301/.409; @ 29 .255/.295/.444; @ 30 .252/.307/.476; @ 34 I won't question 8 Gold Gloves. His career .279/.323/.482 is hardly impressive. He was not playing in the hit-starved 1960s. Dale Murphy played 18 seasons through age 37, with a reputation as a slugger. He had 12 seasons with >400 AB. Here are 5 of them: .226/.284/.394; @ 22 .247/.325/.390; @ 25 .226/.313/.413; @ 32 .228/.306/.361; @ 33 .245/.318/.417; @ 34 I won't question his 5 Gold Gloves. A slugger with a SLG% under .500 for half his full-time seasons and 398 career HR ... hardly qualifies for a second look. They were good ballplayers; and so were Wally Moses, Roy Cullenbine, Hal Trosky, Bobby Murcer, Rico Carty and Fred Lynne. |
|
|
|
|
10-12-2007, 04:05 PM
|
#4 (permalink) | ||||
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Oregon
Posts: 240
|
Quote:
What's interesting is that the BBWAA also hasn't noticed this distinction. They've elected only one center fielder to the Hall of Fame since Duke Snider in 1980. During that same time, they've elected 9 corner outfielders. They're clearly ignoring the distinction between the defensive value of CF and LF-RF. Ken Griffey Jr. will get in around 2015, so unless Dawson gets in before then, we'll have a 34-year period where only one CF is elected by the BBWAA. In the meantime, Henderson, Rice, Bonds and Sosa — all corner outfielders — are coming up. Quote:
Seasons of 120 or more OPS+: (min. 130 G) Dale Murphy 156, 151, 150, 149, 142, 135, 120 Kirby Puckett 152, 140, 138, 132, 132, 131, 129, 120 Would you agree with me at least that Murphy is superior to Puckett? Duke Snider 172, 170, 166, 156, 142, 140, 136, 123 Murphy's offensive numbers are not as good as Snider's, but we must also consider the offenses of the teams they played on. Larry Doby 162, 160, 154, 137, 130, 129, 128, 126 Murphy's offensive numbers are quite similar to Doby's, plus we have to consider that Doby regularly missed a lot of games. Richie Ashburn 142, 136, 121 Murphy's offense is much better than Ashburn's. Ashburn's defense can't make up for that much of a gap. Fred Lynn 176, 162, 143, 134, 133, 132 Murphy's offense is better than Lynn's when combined with Murphy's baserunning, and considering that Lynn regularly missed a lot of games. Andre Dawson 141, 137, 136, 136, 132, 129, 124 Almost as good as Murphy's, and Dawson was a superior baserunner to all these players mentioned. Bobby Murcer 181, 169, 134, 127, 123 Not nearly as good as Murphy's, just an excellent first two seasons. Do you think either Doby, Ashburn, or Puckett are legitimate Hall of Famers? If so, you would have to think Murphy is as well. Who else would you measure against Murphy at CF? So far, he stacks up well with everyone here and surpasses them, with the possible exception of Snider. Quote:
Quote:
Do you think Puckett, Doby or Ashburn were better than Murphy? Last edited by Triad; 10-12-2007 at 04:14 PM. |
||||
|
|
|
|
10-14-2007, 11:32 AM
|
#7 (permalink) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,579
|
I'd prefer to address the discussion from more general observations that to indulge in a point-by-point response to Triad's arguments.
1. On the subject of Richie Ashburn, yes, he belongs on the HoF because, in addition to his eye and ability to get on base, he was also: -a very hard "K," always able to put the ball in play; -one of the finest bunters, sac and "drag" in the history of the game; -a very smart baserunner; -the BEST defensive CF in MLB from the late '40s through latter '50s. Had there been an equivalent defensive award to the Gold Glove, he deserved 10 of them. Observation: Triad seems to discount contact, spray BB guys in favor of power; and making a claim on the defense side of the ledger for CF without recognizing the often non-power contributions from CF as well is less than equitable. 2. Speaking of GREAT defensive CFers NOT in the HoF, I'd toss out several great glove men better than Dawson or Murphy, purely on defense, although some of them handled the bat reasonably well, too; Dominick DiMaggio [lost 3 years to WW II]; Terry Moore [lost 4 years to WW II]; Vada Pinson; Jim Landis; Curt Flood; Billy North; Garry Maddux; Fred Lynn; Dwayne Murphy; Lance Johnson]. Not arguing HoF for any of them, with the possible exception of Fred Lynn, whom I see at least as deserving as either Dawson or Murphy. [No currently active or recently retired CF included]. 3. Duke Snider is the player in more recent history who would be at the margins for upper-tier HoF induction as an outfielder: he is not among the A-Greats [his contemporaries, Mays and Mantle] but is a solid qualifier for comined longevity, power, defense and consistency. 4. Triad questions the membership of Puckett and Doby as well. For Pucket, there may have been an accommodation [disastrous health-related abbreviation of his career]. A similar accommodation was made for Ross Youngs who died of Bright's disease at age 29 in 1927. In any event, HoF induction for Puckett is valid. What Doby can lay claim to is a solid 10.5 year period during which his OPS+ NEVER fell below 126. If Murphy's 7 year peak is so excellent, one must consider Doby's run. Doby and Puckett BOTH were at least as good as either Dawson or Murphy defensively as well. 5. There are matters of layering here, with new generations of "eligibles" coming on like silt deposits with the tide, in addition to Old-Timers being re-evaluated and given a final shot. Admitting the marginal or "quite good" into the HoF can eventually diminish the accomplishment, if it starts to look like rush hour on the subway. Then too, there's Bobby Murcer. Last edited by nanwynnfan; 10-14-2007 at 03:03 PM. |
|
|
|
|
10-14-2007, 08:26 PM
|
#8 (permalink) |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 121
|
I look at both Murphy and Dawson as players on the cusp who don't quite make it, and each represent a different prototype of players in that category. Murphy's peak really was a HoF level peak, but really didn't add much outside of his peak, and his peak wasn't SO good to sustain the lack of additional career value. Dawson, on the other hand, had a longer career as a productive player, but lacks any peak as a great player. Combining Murphy's peak with Dawson's longevity would make for a fine HoF player, but taken separately, they both fall a little short.
I agree with nanwynnfan's assessment on Ashburn. Ashburn really is exactly the type of player gets underrated by a straight OPS evaluation. Defense, baserunning, and bat control don't factor in to OPS at all, and the relative value of OBP versus SLG for a leadoff-type hitter like Ashburn gets understated. On Puckett and Doby, I'd actually agree that there's not a whole lot in their performance records that distinguish them from Murphy, and I'm not sold on either having a HoF career really. Puckett was a high-average hitter, which holds a lot of weight with the HoF vote, and his abrupt end to his career while still at his peak no doubt garnered sympathy votes. Doby, on the other hand, heally had more of a Hall-of-the-Very-Good type career for the most part, but would certainly have faced special circumstances in evaluating him. He was a black player who was a contemporary of Jackie Robinson, who really would have faced the same kind of bigotry that Jackie did. It would have been difficult for many voters to look at him at face value. Whether or not one agrees with their inclusion, I think it is safe to say that for both Doby and Puckett there exist circumstances beyond their playing records that no doubt influenced some of the voters. |
|
|
|
|
10-15-2007, 11:25 PM
|
#9 (permalink) | ||||||
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Oregon
Posts: 240
|
Quote:
High RC Seasons Ashburn: 129, 117, 111, 101, 100 Murphy: 143, 131, 131, 123, 118, 102, 101 It's really not close. Murphy scored 100 runs 4 times and had 100 RBI 5 times. Ashburn scored 100 runs 2 times and never had more than 63 RBI. That's not close either. If Ashburn was a great table setter, he would have been expected to score a lot more runs. He was in the 90s a lot, but topped 100 only twice. When your RBI high is 63 for your career, you've got to score more runs than that. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
10-16-2007, 12:23 AM
|
#10 (permalink) | |||
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Oregon
Posts: 240
|
Quote:
For this same reason, I deem Albert Pujols as in the Mize/Cepeda/Perez realm, and is a worthy Hall of Famer if he retired today. His case is unusual in that he started right out of the gate with 7 MVP-type seasons, but it demonstrates a point. A sustained career that includes 9 or 10 average seasons doesn't really add anything substantive to a player's value. In the era of sabermetrics, we should get away from the primitive notion that raw stats are cumulative over the course of a career, in the sense that they represent the value of a player. But for the mere mortal players, you can often tell if they should be worthy for the Hall of Fame by about age 33. If they have 6, 7 or 8 high quality seasons and a few of those are MVP-type seasons, then that's really what should measure how good someone was. We don't need ancillary data that tells us about how he hung on after he was washed up, or even about the substandard seasons he had somewhere in the middle. I would say the only thing Dawson had on Murphy in longevity was two unproductive seasons as a DH for Boston, and then two part-time seasons with the Marlins, so that's not really adding anything to his resume', though it serves to artificially inflate his numbers. Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Triad; 10-16-2007 at 12:35 AM. |
|||
|
|
|
|
10-16-2007, 01:11 AM
|
#11 (permalink) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,579
|
"I'd even put Bernie Williams ahead of Richie Ashburn, and I don't think Ashburn wasn't a very good player, and I do recognize the deficiences of OPS in regard to baserunning ability. However, remember Murphy did steal 161 bases, including 30 in one season."
I'll just call the Bernie Williams>Richie Ashburn statement absurd and move on. It lends NO weight to the role of the player in the batting order and how he fulfilled it. Totally dismissed is the fact that for over a decade he was THE BEST defensive CF in MLB. He also was a superb contact hitter, averaging 80 BB per year [counting partial years as full] and 38 K. He was impossible to double up and swiped 234 bases in 326 attempts, a 72% rate. His career OB% @ .396 is near the elite level of .400; and his lowest season OB% @ .343 = Dale Murphy's career average. "High RC Seasons "Ashburn: 129, 117, 111, 101, 100 "Murphy: 143, 131, 131, 123, 118, 102, 101 "It's really not close." NOR SHOULD IT HAVE TO BE. Murphy scored 100 runs 4 times and had 100 RBI 5 times. Ashburn scored 100 runs 2 times and never had more than 63 RBI. That's not close either. "If Ashburn was a great table setter, he would have been expected to score a lot more runs. He was in the 90s a lot, but topped 100 only twice. When your RBI high is 63 for your career, you've got to score more runs than that." A player can get on base until the cows come home; but if his teams don't deliver, you don't score. Quote: Originally Posted by nanwynnfan Dominick DiMaggio [lost 3 years to WW II]; Terry Moore [lost 4 years to WW II]; Vada Pinson; Jim Landis; Curt Flood; Billy North; Garry Maddux; Fred Lynn; Dwayne Murphy; Lance Johnson]. Not arguing HoF for any of them, with the possible exception of Fred Lynn, whom I see at least as deserving as either Dawson or Murphy. [No currently active or recently retired CF included]. "Vada Pinson, in my estimation, is worthy of the HOF, and he and Jim Wynn are more deserving of Puckett or Doby. Another one not far off is Reggie Smith also." Fred Lynn>Reggie Smith>Vada Pinson>jim Wynn with none in the HoF. Quote: Originally Posted by nanwynnfan "3. Duke Snider is the player in more recent history who would be at the margins for upper-tier HoF induction as an outfielder: he is not among the A-Greats [his contemporaries, Mays and Mantle] but is a solid qualifier for comined longevity, power, defense and consistency. You may want to check Snider's career. Murphy had 803 more career plate appearances. Snider had only 9 seasons of at least 450 plate appearances, Murphy had 12 seasons of 500 plate appearances, 10 of which were 600 or more PA. People say Murphy had too short of a career, but he had quite a bit more playing time than Snider!" Then you make Snider's case for me. Murphy had 803 more plate appearances; and Snider hat 407 HR to 398 for Murphy. If a guy is going to whiff well over 100 times a year, he'd better put up some power numbers. It's not the number of PA's but what you do with them that counts. 40% of Murphy's career was burdened with very weak stats offensively for HoF consideration. While he was a sold defensive CF, he was not in a class with the bunch I mentioned above, staring with Dom DiMaggio. [Left out his older brother Vince, who was also a great defender and one of the finest OF arms in the history of the game. I understand he sang well too]. I never argued for Snider's defense in CF. He was adequate. Quote: Originally Posted by nanwynnfan "4. Triad questions the membership of Puckett and Doby as well. For Pucket, there may have been an accommodation [disastrous health-related abbreviation of his career]. A similar accommodation was made for Ross Youngs who died of Bright's disease at age 29 in 1927. In any event, HoF induction for Puckett is valid. "Puckett's next season would have been age 36. Murphy retired at age 37. How much can you project in the late 30s? Murphy had 1209 more PA than Puckett. Do you seriously think Puckett had all that much more than 1200 good PA left in him at age 36, 37 and 38, even if his eyes were good?" Not a well-reasoned question. I make no pretense at crystal-balling years left on a player's career. Ted Williams batted .388 at 39 or 40' and Barry Bonds broke the HR record pretty convincingly at 43. "I'll agree that Doby was indeed very consistent, and there's a lot to be said for that. Doby never stole more than 10 bases in a season. And -- get this -- he had 2738 fewer PA than Murphy! You'd never know that, listening to people talking about Murphy's "short" career." Doby is the weakest of the HoF members listed here; and that is probably due to the breaking of the color barrier. Doby was a superb CF. I say weakest because he barely makes the 10 season requirement with a couple of part-time seasons filling out his career. However he was the picture of consistency andd a superb defense CF. I don't begrudge him his membership. Quote: Originally Posted by nanwynnfan "Then too, there's Bobby Murcer." "I already mentioned Murcer. He had two great seasons, and then fades fast." I tossed in Bobby Murcer as a punch line. No knock on Murcer. He was a fine CF and a good offensive performer. No HoF [IMO], like Dawson & Murphy. |
|
|
|
|
10-16-2007, 01:24 AM
|
#12 (permalink) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,579
|
As a post script, Triad has gone back to OPS+ several times, so I figured I'd revisit some of the guys mentioned here to see how they shaped up. I did not include lead-off, spray hitter, bunting types.
Snider 140 Doby 136 Lynn 130 Wynn 128 Murcer 124 Murphy 121 Dawson 119 As for Fed Lynn, how about these seasons: 162, 133, 134, 176, 131,143, 129, 132, 126 ............. move further back in line, Murph and Andre. [Look at Murcer, too]. Last edited by nanwynnfan; 10-16-2007 at 09:58 AM. |
|
|
|
|
10-17-2007, 12:28 AM
|
#13 (permalink) | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Oregon
Posts: 240
|
Quote:
Season highs in games played: Lynn .. Murphy 150 .... 162 147 .... 162 145 .... 162 142 .... 162 138 .... 160 132 .... 159 129 .... 156 124 .... 156 117 .... 154 117 .... 154 114 .... 153 112 .... 151 You have to take their season rate stats in the context of the games played per season. In Lynn's top 8 seasons in terms of games played, he missed an average of 23 games per year. And those were the years he played the most! By the same token, Murphy missed 19 games in his highest eight seasons, an average of 2 games per year! Murphy had 7 seasons with 100 or more RC, while Lynn had just 3. Lynn had good rate stats, but his durability was awful. He hurt his teams by missing so many games throughout his entire career. Now, for Bernie Williams vs. Richie Ashburn... Williams' best RC seasons 140, 125, 118, 118, 117, 116, 113, 109 Ashburn's best RC seasons 129, 117, 111, 101, 100, 95, 92, 91 It's not even close. No fielding in CF can make up for about a 10-15 RC differential every year. And Williams was a decent fielder (4 Gold Gloves). Incidentally, Bill James in his 2001 historical abstract has them all ranked this way in center field: 6. Duke Snider 8. Kirby Puckett 11. Larry Doby 12. Dale Murphy 16. Richie Ashburn 17. Fred Lynn 18. Vada Pinson I didn't understand what you meant by this: Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
10-17-2007, 01:11 AM
|
#14 (permalink) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,579
|
"Incidentally, Bill James in his 2001 historical abstract has them all ranked this way in center field:
6. Duke Snider 8. Kirby Puckett 11. Larry Doby 12. Dale Murphy 16. Richie Ashburn 17. Fred Lynn 18. Vada Pinson" God forgive me for the following blasphemy: I could care less how Bill James has CFers rated all time. There are several reasons for this: 1. He originally gave us Range Factor, among other things that were later massaged, modified, dumped then revisited. 2. A few years back John Dewan apparently spent huge bucks in presenting "The Bible" for which I paid the going price [I believe $14.95] with marvelous graphic field layouts and several prismatic views of evaluating defensive play. To provide some narrative "punch" to the statistical displays, he had James provide thumbnail verbal sketches of players' defensive play. Problem was, the narrative quips often contradicted the numerical stats. I found the notes on Carlos Delgado and Todd Helton laughable; and would rather have saved my money [and perhaps stayed uninformed within my own evaluations] than to pay for a text where the authors got in eachothers' way so clumsily. 3. Throughout, James, who has NO DOUBT made some real contributions to "Sabermetrics," has maintained a surly, condescending edge, which I find, personally, unwarranted. JMHO] "I didn't understand what you meant by this: Quote: Triad: High RC Seasons Ashburn: 129, 117, 111, 101, 100 Murphy: 143, 131, 131, 123, 118, 102, 101 It's really not close. nanwynnfan: NOR SHOULD IT HAVE TO BE. What does that mean? You don't like runs created?" Not at all. However, 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." Defensively, Ashburn was not a very good or excellent CF, he was superb. I said it once before and I'll say it again, had there been such awards as Gold Gloves, Ashburn would have DESERVED 10 of them. 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. But I've said that [as well as going into Murphy's several pathetic seasons. What I like, among other things, is that .396 lifetime OB% and saving @ 15 runs above average defensively in CF. As to this .... "Now, for Bernie Williams vs. Richie Ashburn... Williams' best RC seasons 140, 125, 118, 118, 117, 116, 113, 109 Ashburn's best RC seasons 129, 117, 111, 101, 100, 95, 92, 91 It's not even close. No fielding in CF can make up for about a 10-15 RC differential every year. And Williams was a decent fielder (4 Gold Gloves)." I'll reiterate what I said about a Murphy-Ashburn heads-on comp: different roles. I'll give you this much - a better case for the HoF can be made for Bernie Williams than for either Murphy or Dawson. Last edited by nanwynnfan; 10-17-2007 at 09:08 AM. |
|
|
|
|
10-17-2007, 11:20 AM
|
#15 (permalink) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,579
|
My final attempt at why Murphy should not be in the HoF, pasted from Baseball-Reference player pages, may be called cherry-picking to make a case.
However, the discussion has had rigorous arguments on Murphy's behalf, spilling over into comps against other player [in the HoF and out], that this approach is warranted. The seasons below, SEVEN of them, and NOT at the tail end of an aging player's career, make my case that Murphy was very fine in his best seasons and borderline adequate for 40% of his career [which may be generous]. The headings for the columns are: Season....Age....Team.....LG.....Games...AB....BA. ....OB%....SLG% 1978 22 ATL NL 151 530 .226 .284 .394 1981 25 ATL NL 104 369 .247 .325 .390 1986 30 ATL NL 160 614 .265 .347 .477 1988 32 ATL NL 156 592 .226 .313 .421 1989 33 ATL NL 154 574 .228 .306 .361 1990 34 TOT NL 154 563 .245 .318 .417 [two teams] ATL NL 97 349 .232 .312 .418 PHI NL 57 214 .266 .328 .416 1991 35 PHI NL 153 544 .252 .309 .415 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. 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. |
|
|
|
 |
|
