Master Index of Archived Threads


Dan Murphy Is...

Carl Yaztremski

3 votes

Jose Cruz

1 votes

Keith Hernandez

3 votes

Dave Magadan

9 votes

Greg Jefferies

1 votes

Bruce Boisclair

1 votes

Keith Miller

1 votes

Dave Schneck

0 votes

Other

1 votes

Edgy DC Mar 02 2009 11:23 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 02 2009 01:54 PM

A big part of the suspense for me this season is wondering what kind of player Daniel Murphy is going to be. What does he have to offer the team this year, and what will he become over the long haul?

metsguyinmichigan Mar 02 2009 11:30 AM

We noticed in the spring games that while Murphy was on deck, he was going into his stance as if he was in the box, and swinging as the pitch was thrown getting his timing down. I like him.

metirish Mar 02 2009 11:31 AM

I voted for Keith Hernandez.....is that hoping for too much?

Edgy DC Mar 02 2009 11:33 AM

Well, it's an option. Somebody voted for Yaz.

MFS62 Mar 02 2009 11:59 AM

Actually, he has reminded me of someone else. I remember when that other player came up. He had played mostly third base in the minors. His fielding was ok there, not great. But the reports said he didn't have the power to move to first base, or to win a regular corner outfield spot in the majors. But I liked the way the other player was patient, took the outside pitch to left, and hit for gap power to all fields. That other player? Wade Boggs. I honestly think Murphy can be like him. But since he wasn't on the list, I voted Keith Hernandez. Later

soupcan Mar 02 2009 12:09 PM

Wade Boggs? In 1988 I fell under the trance of Gregg Jefferies, telling all who would listen that the Mets had a future Hall of Famer on their hands. I was certain of it. My friend laughed in my face and we bet that if Jefferies did not make the Hall I would have to either buy him a new car or pay for his kid's college education. I've been ducking him pretty good for a few years now.

TheOldMole Mar 02 2009 12:10 PM

I seem to be with Magadan and the majority.

Edgy DC Mar 02 2009 01:54 PM

Other was supposed to be an option. It is now.

smg58 Mar 02 2009 02:24 PM

Magadan seems to be the best match of that group, although if he turns into Yaz or Keith I certainly wouldn't mind.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 02 2009 02:31 PM

Rough calculus, in my headbrain? Murph on the contact-guys scale, as per their 80s offensive peaks (Coke-y Cardinal Mex had a LOT more power than Captain Mex): Hernandez = Poor Man's Boggs (great on-base skills versus otherworldly on-base skills) Magadan = Poor Man's Mex/Homeless Man's Boggs (good on-base skills, less power versus the other two) Murph (present day) = Poor Man's Magadan/Poor Man-in-a-bad-economy's Mex (good on-base skills, but with even less power... and playing an easier position to fill)

John Cougar Lunchbucket Mar 02 2009 02:37 PM

I'm not convinced that Murph has anything more to bring to the table than we've seen to this point, which is fine but not great. There's a lotta Wigginton in him, I think, maybe better OBP but less power, shaky at his position, hustler, white. And like Wiggy was to Wright, I think Murph is most likely to be a "get-by" guy till Fartinez is ready. At least, that ought to be one scenario.

Nymr83 Mar 02 2009 03:06 PM

If he can really maintain an OBP over .370 (he had a .397 last year in limited at bats, a .352 career in the minors, which was better this past season than the last) then he's a better than average player and a worthy starter even if his power doesnt grow much. Offensively I think he can be Roberto Alomar, but I'm worried he won't have a position longterm and his bat won't be worth carrying if he can't become an average defender somewhere.

Edgy DC Mar 02 2009 05:08 PM

Agreed that what he has in common with Wigs is that he (1) may not have a place in the Mets long-term plans and (2) isn't a particularly capable fielder at any position (even his father says so), but I think he's a very different animal as a hitter --- a lefthander with patience and contact --- and I tried to fill the slots with a spectrum of guys sort of like that, or guys with Met pedigree who similarly made a splash when they came up. The Mets probably could have found more use for Magadan, and hopefully they will find more for Murphy if --- as our voters suggest --- he turns into a similar player. I don't think he can be no Roberto Alomar offensively.

Nymr83 Mar 02 2009 05:25 PM

]I don't think he can be no Roberto Alomar offensively. I think you're overating Alomar, we're only talking .300/.370/.440 here, a career OPS+ of 116. I think Murphy can do that. Dave Magadan wasn't very far behind Alomar as an offensive player.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 02 2009 05:52 PM

Alomar had a 150 OPS+ year, a 141, and several 130+ years. At his peak, he was a better, more powerful hitter, with much more speed... and at a much more difficult position than Mags. (All of which isn't to dismiss the fact that he's a tremendous, TREMENDOUS douche.)

Nymr83 Mar 02 2009 06:16 PM

I was reffering to his career averages, and pointing out his position is pretty dumb considering that i said "as an offensive player" in my post, does that not make it obvious enough to you that i wasnt talking about defense?

Edgy DC Mar 02 2009 06:24 PM

Alomar also got leg hits, took extra bases, was ahigh percentage basestealer. His high OBP was a prodcut of his bat first, and his eye second. He hit .300 and walked .099, and Mags hit .288 and walked .145. Similar OPS+, maybe, but they got there so differently.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 02 2009 06:57 PM

This won't answer the question, but statistically, Murphy's first Met season is very comparable to that of another past Met first year sensation -- Mike Vail. Murph's debut was a little better.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 02 2009 07:02 PM

="Nymr83":2lz0r8y7]I was reffering to his career averages, and pointing out his position is pretty dumb considering that i said "as an offensive player" in my post, does that not make it obvious enough to you that i wasnt talking about defense?[/quote:2lz0r8y7] Singles-hitting bat get stuck up your butt, guy? I did leave out a couple of key words: "much more difficult position TO FILL." I wasn't referring explicitly to defense as part of his value... just that his defensive position impacts his value to his teams. Alomar's value as an offensive player isn't to be considered in a vacuum (part of the germ of the idea behind VORP); even if I were conceding the point that they were pretty similar offensively, the same numbers are much more valuable when plugged in for a second-baseman. willpie Mar 02 2009 07:07 PM Some talking head or other said Paul O'Neill. I like the idea of Murphy being a fan-favorite component of a 4-ring club, so I went with Other. O'Neill can still suck it, though. batmagadanleadoff Mar 02 2009 07:13 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":26olukv0]This won't answer the question, but statistically, Murphy's first Met season is very comparable to that of another past Met first year sensation -- Mike Vail. Murph's debut was a little better.[/quote:26olukv0] By the way, Mike Vail's most comparable player (per Baseball Reference) is Glenn Adams. Timo Perez is fifth most comparable. duan Mar 03 2009 05:46 AM 1 Frank Catalanotto 1998 64 2 Brad Mills 1981 63 3 Mike Lamb 2000 59 4 Matt Stairs 1992 59 5 Benny Distefano 1986 58 6 Brian Traxler 1992 57 7 Jordan Brown 2008 57 8 Chad Tracy 2004 56 9 Matt Franco 1994 56 10 Shawn Hare 1991 55 11 Luke Allen 2003 55 12 Chris Padget 1987 55 13 Jamie Dismuke 1994 54 14 John Kruk 1985 53 15 Daryl Sconiers 1983 53 16 Ron Henika 1986 53 17 Barry Jones 1989 52 18 Matt Watson 2003 52 19 Jay Gibbons 2001 52 20 Scott Cooper 1992 51 is pecota's comparable list. Not much to get crazy optimistic about there, but if he is Frank Catalanatto that's worth something. [/list] Frayed Knot Mar 03 2009 07:26 AM Any comps based off of 130 ML ABs is pretty meaningless (yeah they probably take minor league stats into account too, but still). Having said that, John Kruk's on that list and he might not be a bad comp. LH batter; strictly a corner guy; career of .300 BA/.400 OBA; hit to the opposite field a lot (a [u:1vqhnzp9]helluva[/u:1vqhnzp9] lot in Kruk's case); only occasional power. Murphy might be a bit more flexible defensively and could develop more power -- but one could do a lot worse than a 10 yr career and a 3x All-Star with occasional back-of-the-pack MVP votes. Benjamin Grimm Mar 03 2009 07:48 AM I've been getting a Gregg Jefferies vibe from Murphy, and I'm the (so far) lone vote for Jefferies in this poll. I just checked to see what Gregg's average season was, assuming 150 games played, and I came up with the following: 566 AB, 78 R, 163 H, 31 2B, 3 3B, 13 HR, 68 RBI, 48 BB, 36 SO, 20 SB, 6 CS, .289 AVG, .344 OBP, .421 SLG Those would be fine numbers for Murphy if he turns out to be a middle infielder. Not quite as good if he's a corner outfielder. I think, at worst, he'll be Joel Youngblood. duan Mar 03 2009 08:23 AM the pecota comps are not based on majors stuff, they're based on minors & majors. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 03 2009 09:47 AM A not-at-all-terrible best-case scenario: Rusty Greer, mebbe? (Selectivity, with SOME minor power in the minors... which blossomed at 26-27.) The thing about having no power... it's more likely to change as a player ages than someone's plate approach is. Which is to say, it'll be easier for Murphy to develop power than it is for a toolsy guy without baseball instincts/tutelage to do a 180 on "plate approach" and selectivity. Frayed Knot Mar 03 2009 10:52 AM Greer was fine until he petered out early due to injuries just as his big contract kicked in. Kruk's power was actually a bit better than I remembered. A bunch of doubles and twice topped 20 HRs to wind up with a career .145 IsoP number. About .150 is about average these days but pre-'94 strike levels were probably less. Not great for a 1st/LF but a bit more than the singles/doubles hitter I thought. I suspect Murphy could grow into a somewhat better "slugger" than that.