Do you think Dale Murphy deserves to be in the Hall of Fame?

Yes, I do think Murf belongs in the Hall -- and recognize that, clearly, this is a minority view amongst the voters and it's not going to happen.

I've supported him since his candidacy began in 1999, though I've never been a staunch supporter. I see plenty of merit in arguments against him; my opinion is that despite such, he just squeaks by, and while he'd look good on a plaque, the Hall is not a lesser repository of the game's history without him.

I've done a blog review of the Hall ballot every year since 2007, and that first one (for 2008 election) has my most spirited discussion of Murphy, principally because there has been so little to add since. Scroll down to #17 if you're interested: http://cmcoherent.blogspot.com/2007/11/halls-2008-...

Dale Murphy doesn't get in to the hall for a variety of reasons 1. Players from 80's are overlooked by the time they became eligible the numbers had been raised so high (we know why now). Look! Look! who from that era has made it in ? Hey Morris can't to Rice 15 years. Trammell and Whitacker got better chance at lotto. Dewy Evans with the greatest arm not even a whisper. Do I think he belongs absolutely but i don't get any votes. Best of use to mean automatic (almost) best 80's just means oops not enough.

Sure

Dale belongs in the Hall of Very Good. Man, I hate to say it but after 1987, he just struggled as a hitter. From 1988-1993, his batting average, OBP, power, RBIs, and slugging % were all bad. Those last couple of years of his career ruined his chance.

Lets say if he COULD have put up about three more great years, he WOULD have had a solid chance getting in.

Just because you put up terrific numbers for about 7 years, it does NOT make you a Hall of Famer. Or even with 2 MVP Awards.

Murphy was definitely a top tier player during his day, but not quite good enough or for long enough, in my opinion. He either needed to have been a touch better during his 6 year heyday, or he needed to play at a peak level for another 2 or 3 years.

Having said that, Murphy does compare favorably with Jim Rice, who is in the HOF. By the same token, there are those who argue that Rice shouldn't have been elected, so...

He's on the fence, but I'm just not sure we should keep lowering the standards just because they've been lowered in the past.

As amazing as it may seem, the 2-time NL MVP didn't accomplish enough in his career to merit induction. He had a six-year stretch where he averaged .289/36/104, winning the two MVP awards and five Gold Gloves, but he was simply ordinary the rest of his 18-year career.

Consider that he hit 218 of his 398 career home runs during those six years and you get an idea of how truly ordinary he was. Murphy was a great guy but he's no Hall of Famer.

"But there are worse in the hall of fame..."

I am afraid I cannot support any argument for inducting a player into the HOF based on the fact that he wouldn't be the WORST player in there. Because if I do, I would have to accept that argument for any player better than Tommy McCarthy (who I, and many others, believe is the worst player in the HOF), and that would mean inducting players like Paul Blair, Garry Maddox, Bob Boone, Joe Carter and about 300 other players.

He was a good player, but falls into that category of "close but no cigar!"