If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. Dale Murphy could have been a good 1B I'm wondering if Dale Murphy could have been a good 1B had he not suffered from T-12 back surgery. I wonder if it might have been something along the lines of a John Olerud (who was a decent 1B) who was used mostly as a pinch hitter. It seems that while most people would argue that Murphy couldn't hit on the mound, he was better than most 1B-pitchers who could not hit on the mound (such as Paul O'Neill). But since he couldn't catch he wouldn't have been much of a 1B. Would he have been a good 3B, then? Re: Dale Murphy could have been a good 1B The main difference is Murphy was a full time pitcher who didn't play the field. But we are also talking about a guy who couldn't hit when it mattered. Olerud had a short stint in the majors, he did very well in the minors and then had back surgery at the age of 26. In 2000 he played 25 games at first base in which he hit .200 with 1 RBI and 8 Hits in 45 At Bats (0 for 0 with RISP). Murphy's back problems started when he was 15 years old and by his career he never was able to play baseball regularly and he retired at the age of 31. As far as him being able to play 3B I would put him at the same level of a 2B like Brian Giles for example. I would be surprised if Murphy was able to make an average defensive play at 1B. In other words Murphy might have been able to fill that role had he been healthy but his career and back problems kept him from doing so. Re: Dale Murphy could have been a good 1B Originally Posted by jimmiehenry I'm wondering if Dale Murphy could have been a good 1B had he not suffered from T-12 back surgery. I wonder if it might have been something along the lines of a John Olerud (who was a decent 1B) who was used mostly as a pinch hitter. It seems that while most people would argue that Murphy couldn't hit on the mound, he was better than most 1B-pitchers who could not hit on the mound (such as Paul O'Neill). But since he couldn't catch he wouldn't have been much of a 1B. Would he have been a good 3B, then? A bad 1B-pitcher who can't throw strikes is a lot more valuable than a mediocre 1B-pitcher who can. Murphy is a bad 1B-pitcher. He was very good at getting on base. But he couldn't do anything with it on defense. Re: Dale Murphy could have been a good 1B A bad 1B-pitcher who can't throw strikes is a lot more valuable than a mediocre 1B-pitcher who can. Murphy is a bad 1B-pitcher. He was very good at getting on base. But he couldn't do anything with it on defense. No, he could have also been able to block ground balls and not cost runs. For that matter most people would say that Murphy is a worse DH than a 1B. And Olerud would be an ok DH, but we're comparing him to Murphy. Murphy was a much better 1B than Olerud. Re: Dale Murphy could have been a good 1B I was a fan of Murphy since the mid 80's when he was with the Orioles. I remember watching him break his wrist when he came in after getting hit by a pitch from a left hander that he couldn't hit. I remember thinking to myself, "if only there was another right-handed first baseman we could put there." Dale Murphy was pretty good at one thing and one thing only. Getting on base. He was pretty good and consistent with getting on base, however he could not hit a good fastball. Maybe Murphy should have been a DH. He did spend a lot of time at 1B but I don't recall him hitting for a high average and with a lot of power. He was usually a singles hitter though. Murphy was still a good 1B. But not as good as you might expect. Murphy could handle the bat well off the bench but nothing more than that. Murphy couldn't hit when it mattered most. He couldn't hit a pitch down in the strike zone. Murphy was one of the worst I've ever seen at seeing a high ball. Murphy's bat is so bad, that you really couldn't even compare it to other 1B'S that struggled with high pitches. The worst is that his bat is that bad. He would simply not be able to do much with it when the ball was in the zone. It was a struggle seeing him hit the ball. Murphy could hit any pitch he liked when it was in the zone and he could have hit it high. He also could have hit it low, he just didn't like it very much. Re: Dale Murphy could have been a good 1B Murphy's bat is so bad, that you really couldn't even compare it to other 1B's that struggled with high pitches. The worst is that his bat is that bad. He would simply not be able to do much with it when the ball was in the zone. It was a struggle seeing him hit the ball. Murphy could hit any pitch he liked when it was in the zone and he could have hit it high. He also could have hit it low, he just didn't like it very much. Re: Dale Murphy could have been a good 1B Originally Posted by jimmiehenry Murphy's bat is so bad, that you really couldn't even compare it to other 1B's that struggled with high pitches. The worst is that his bat is that bad. He would simply not be able to do much with it when the ball was in the zone. It was a struggle seeing him hit the ball. Murphy could hit any pitch he liked when it was in the zone and he could have hit it high. He also could have hit it low, he just didn't like it very much. There are no 1B's who struggled with high pitches. Dale Murphy was bad. Period. With the exception of Ron Hansen, nobody was worse. There's maybe one or two other bad players who didn't make the major leagues. Re: Dale Murphy could have been a good 1B Originally Posted by jojo There are no 1B's who struggled with high pitches. Dale Murphy was bad. Period. With the exception of Ron Hansen, nobody was worse. There's maybe one or two other bad players who didn't make the major leagues. I hate to disagree with a guy who calls himself "JoJo" but Murphy played more first base than anybody other than Frank Thomas. Murphy was the worst player to try and hit a fastball that would be over the plate. So this argument can be turned around. Because he was bad, there's no list of better first baseman. Since he was bad he couldn't do anything else. I mean Dale Murphy played more first base than anybody other than Frank Thomas. It seems as though I never really like to argue with anybody who refers to themselves as "JoJo" and likes his nickname, but he was wrong in his assessment. Murphy was not bad. Murphy was abysmal. Murphy was not just a bad first baseman. Murphy's hitting was the epitome of how bad he was. Murphy never hit well with a high pitch but Murphy had the highest zone percentage in the league in comparison to the other player. You're argument was to prove that Dale Murphy was a bad first baseman. However, Murphy's inability to hit a fastball proved that. Murphy's inability to hit a fastball is what makes Murphy's career numbers so amazing. Nobody can hit high pitches like Murphy could and he did it so much better than any other player. Murphy's zone percentage and his low batting average on high pitches is what makes him so amazing, along with being a career .333 hitter. I'm not arguing with JoJo but I will continue to refute his claim. Re: Dale Murphy could have been a good 1B Originally Posted by jojo There are no 1B's who struggled with high pitches. Dale Murphy was bad. Period. With the exception of Ron Hansen, nobody was worse. There's maybe one or two other bad players who didn't make the major leagues. Again, there are a bunch of players who had good hitting percentages hitting for high pitches. So, Dale Murphy's inability to hit a high pitch isn't that far-fetched for a guy who was awful. Re: Dale Murphy could have been a good 1B It doesn't make much sense for Murphy to be a DH, except as a