[todeen]

Originally Posted by bk400

In all seriousness, though, Murphy did win the NL MVP two years in a row, meaning that a lot of people thought he was best in the business in his prime.

I think the argument "lowering the status of the HOF" is absolutely stupid. People redefine fame as "godlike status." IMO I would include a lot more people: Paul O'Neill, Bernie Williams, Murphy, Helton, Felix Hernandez.

I'm beating a dead horse, but Felix Hernandez had 114 no decisions. His ERA is 2.91 in those no decisions. He had 118 non-win quality starts in which his record was 0-42. He had 180 quality starts where he gave up 2 runs or fewer = 43% of his career starts total. He had 149 quality starts where he received 2 runs or fewer of run support from the Mariners.

Why do I bring up the crappy Mariners? Because Murphy played for some crappy/bad/mediocre Braves teams. HOF voters are biased against players whose stats are negatively effected by the bad players around them. For instance, people say about Joey Votto: "he really should have more RBI if he were a true HOF player." Well, that requires bad players around him to get on base. I think the same can be said for Murphy. On the same argument, people claim Derek Jeter would be a borderline HOF if he were on a mediocre team. It's stupid.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk