What about Dawson?

[four tool]

Hm, they passed over both William Hulbert of Chicago and Harry Wright of NYC-Cincinnati-Boston-Philadelphia in favor of Connecticut Governor Morgan Bulkeley!

Among the players they have been criticized for too quickly electing only George Sisler of U Michigan and St Louis.

Among the mixed careers perhaps they overrated Charlie Comiskey of St Louis and Chicago.

They passed over almost all the 19th century players with equal opportunity for East and West.

Paul, I dont know what happened in the quote, , but I never said anything about east coast bias! I do beleive it exists, but that quote is not from me.

[four tool]

You said that it shouldn't be called "the Hall of very good", but used all caps for the word FAME, indicating that the word FAME was the operative word that you emphasized and agreed with. You went on talking about how your criteria was very strict for election. I was only claiming, that if your criteria was very strict, why would you be okay with the word "FAME" in the title? There is obviously a huge difference beteen fame and greatness. In fact the HOF is probably closer in reality to a HO very good than it is a HO fame. If you care about the museum's name, function, and perception (after all, you object to it being a hall of very good) and how correct it is, wouldn't you want it to be called "Hall of Great?"

I wans't accusing you of semantics, I was accusing us of semantics. I was clearly unable to articulate my point very well.

Really, it is no big deal. I understand you point. I am not sold on Dawson or the people we are comparing him with either. I should have just stuck to the main point to avis confusion/conflict.
thanks for explaining, but any title that the hall uses needs to be defined. Joe Jackson, for example was both great and is famous, but he is not nor (probably) ever will be in the hall. So where does that leave us?
I'm not as concerned about the name as I am about the criteria (or lack thereof) for induction, as I've said re Jim Rice, etc. etc on many threads.

[STLCards2]

Paul, I dont know what happened in the quote, , but I never said anything about east coast bias! I do beleive it exists, but that quote is not from me.

The mentioning of east-coast bias is was from Classic.

[four tool]

The mentioning of east-coast bias is was from Classic.

Right, but how did it get atrributed to me? I never said the idea of east coast bias is wrong.

[Paul Wendt]

Paul, I dont know what happened in the quote, , but I never said anything about east coast bias! I do beleive it exists, but that quote is not from me.

Excuse me. I misread your response to StLCards2 as "I think it was true in the beginning."

[four tool]

Never mind, I was just curious as to how somwething i never said ended up a quote from me.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Never mind, I was just curious as to how somwething i never said ended up a quote from me.

It must have been after you wrote the Gettysburg Address.

Four tools and seventy years ago, our four fathers inducted a great HOFer . . .

Anything that goes on with the VC of the past had so much more to do with cronyism than bias toward one coast or another. It might be coincidental that certain teams were represented greater, but any bias doesn't stem from that.

[STLCards2]

Right, but how did it get atrributed to me? I never said the idea of east coast bias is wrong.

In my first post, I was addressing both your statements about the Hall of Fame name, and Classic's post about the east-coas bias, but didn't add his quote in. My mistake. Sorry, everybody.

[Brad Harris]

Hm, they passed over both William Hulbert of Chicago and Harry Wright of NYC-Cincinnati-Boston-Philadelphia in favor of Connecticut Governor Morgan Bulkeley!
George was elected in 1937 shortly after his death brought to the attention of the Committee the contributions of the "Wright brothers." Harry had passed away decades earlier and George was widely regarded as the game's first great shortstop so the extension of credit for the organizing of the 1869 team was assigned to the wrong brother. Harry was elected relatively "soon" thereafter. The Committee elected Bulkeley (along with Ban Johnson) the same year to honor the first league presidents, not necessarily the best.

Among the players they have been criticized for too quickly electing only George Sisler of U Michigan and St Louis.
Only half a century later. It was a universally applauded decision at the time and for decades later. Sisler's reputation, like Pie Traynor's, has suffered somewhat with deeper statistical analysis of the past thirty years.

Among the mixed careers perhaps they overrated Charlie Comiskey of St Louis and Chicago.
Certainly, but you have to consider that all of the voters in question had known and worked alongside Commy for years and he had passed away not too many years before the vote so he was prominent the collective memories of the Committee. He also, in the 1930s, had the reputation (deserved or not) of having been one of the best first basemen in the game's early years.

They passed over almost all the 19th century players with equal opportunity for East and West.
Your point?

[JDD]

Andre Dawson was the one player I wished my Dodgers would go out and sign... but alas my guys of the late 70s and early 80s got by with the likes of Rick Monday (a fine player when healthy) and then Ken Landreaux and Rudy Law. They would have made the series in 1980 and 1982 for sure with him out there.

That said, I would like to think he is HOF worthy. I won't run thru his stats here, but I would like to say that while he was active, I always thought I was watching one of the best players of that generation. Injuries kept him from certain counting numbers. As his career progressed he and Fred Lynn and everyone else watched Dave Winfield put up the stats it took to get into the HOF. Darn shame.

[Brad Harris]

Just some trivia to consider:

Upon his retirement after the 1996 season, Andre Dawson owned the 10th most career home runs and 8th highest single season home run mark in National League history. His 1987 total of 49 dingers was just 7 shy of the National League record. His 407 career taters were on of just 11 National Leaugers to surpass the 400 mark (and one of just 17 with 350+; the only other one on that list outside the Hall being Gil Hodges and his 370 home runs.)

Makes one wonder how much the homer-happy Nineties/Aughts are coloring our perspective on Dawson's credentials as a legitimate power hitter.

[OleMissCub]

Just some trivia to consider:

Upon his retirement after the 1996 season, Andre Dawson owned the 10th most career home runs and 8th highest single season home run mark in National League history. His 1987 total of 49 dingers was just 7 shy of the National League record. His 407 career taters were on of just 11 National Leaugers to surpass the 400 mark (and one of just 17 with 350+; the only other one on that list outside the Hall being Gil Hodges and his 370 home runs.)

Makes one wonder how much the homer-happy Nineties/Aughts are coloring our perspective on Dawson's credentials as a legitimate power hitter.

No kidding.

Dawson is a HOFer:

400+ HR
2700 + hits
300+ SB
1500+ RBI
8 Gold Gloves
7 time All-Star

[Captain Cold Nose]

No kidding.

Dawson is a HOFer:

400+ HR
2700 + hits
300+ SB
1500+ RBI
8 Gold Gloves
7 time All-Star

You forgot one thing.

65% of the HOF vote, or about that. And relatively early on the ballot, too. regardless of whether those here think he's deserving or not, his eventual election is practically guaranteed.

[Mike90]

400+ HRs are more impressive for a hitter playing his prime years in the 80s rather in the 90s. Still...Dawson was one of the better HR hitters of his time, usually not the greatest. He led the league once in HRs, finished in the top-5 four times, and in the top-10 nine times. He never led the league in slugging %, but he finished 2nd twice and had six other seasons when he was in the top-10.

Dawson's a tough case for me. Some days I look at his couting stats and those 3 seasons where he was top-2 in MVP voting and think he's an easy hall of famer. Then I look at his .323 OBP. His OBP was 6% worse than average. His power was exceptional but probably not great enough to make up for all the outs he made. Barely OUT.

[Paul Wendt]

> Among the players they have been criticized for too quickly electing only George Sisler of U Michigan and St Louis.

Only half a century later. It was a universally applauded decision at the time and for decades later. Sisler's reputation, like Pie Traynor's, has suffered somewhat with deeper statistical analysis of the past thirty years.

> Among the mixed careers perhaps they overrated Charlie Comiskey of St Louis and Chicago.

Certainly, but you have to consider that all of the voters in question had known and worked alongside Commy for years and he had passed away not too many years before the vote so he was prominent the collective memories of the Committee. He also, in the 1930s, had the reputation (deserved or not) of having been one of the best first basemen in the game's early years.

> They passed over almost all the 19th century players with equal opportunity for East and West.

Your point?
If the Hall of Fame was plagued by eastern bias from the beginning we should be able to find it in several early election winners from the East who seem undeserving today, and several from the West who would have been better choices.

Which early selections are commonly called poor ones today?

Off the field, Morgan Bulkeley, and he was purely East, Hulbert West, Harry Wright mixed. Does the HOF election of Bulkeley manifest eastern bias? [No, his selection as NL President represents deference to America's eastern center of gravity back in 1876.]

Among the players, Sisler is commonly called weak, but he played was all West until he was over the hill.

Among the mixed careers, maybe Comiskey? Pure West.

Plain 19th century players they passed over indiscriminately.

If there is evidence of eastern bias in the early Hall of Fame laurels and corresponding oversights, there isn't much.

[henrich]

LF Stargell 11,662
Rice 11,347
Raines 11,220


CF Puckett 10,113
Murphy 10,392
Oliver 10,157

RF Parker 12,494
Dawson 12,370
Gwynn 11,599
Evans D. 10,932

I think this shows that Rice, Raines, Murphy, Oliver, Dawson and Parker deserve to be in that HOF discussion. Prior to free agency, if a score of 10,000 or above was reached all but 4 players are in the HOF (Hodges, Willie Davis, Gordon and Nettles.)

After free agency the 10,000 mark hasn't been established as much due to players still eligible, longer careers due to better medicine/free agency/DH, and now PED's.

[Los Bravos]

Makes one wonder how much the homer-happy Nineties/Aughts are coloring our perspective on Dawson's credentials as a legitimate power hitter.The truly maddening thing about that is that so much of that era's numbers have turned into the statistical equivalent of cotton candy.


CCN's right, though: Hawk's a lock. He just should already be in, at least IMHO.

[four tool]

LF Stargell 11,662
Rice 11,347
Raines 11,220


CF Puckett 10,113
Murphy 10,392
Oliver 10,157

RF Parker 12,494
Dawson 12,370
Gwynn 11,599
Evans D. 10,932

I think this shows that Rice, Raines, Murphy, Oliver, Dawson and Parker deserve to be in that HOF discussion. Prior to free agency, if a score of 10,000 or above was reached all but 4 players are in the HOF (Hodges, Willie Davis, Gordon and Nettles.)

After free agency the 10,000 mark hasn't been established as much due to players still eligible, longer careers due to better medicine/free agency/DH, and now PED's.

maybe I missed something, but what are these scores?

[Brad Harris]

maybe I missed something, but what are these scores?
That's the H-factor, baby! </Chris Rock>

[RuthMayBond]

CF Puckett 10,113
Murphy 10,392
Oliver 10,157

RF Parker 12,494
Dawson 12,370
Gwynn 11,599
Evans D. 10,932

I think this shows that Rice, Raines, Murphy, Oliver, Dawson and Parker deserve to be in that HOF discussion. Prior to free agency, if a score of 10,000 or above was reached all but 4 players are in the HOF (Hodges, Willie Davis, Gordon and Nettles.)

After free agency the 10,000 mark hasn't been established as much due to players still eligible, longer careers due to better medicine/free agency/DH, and now PED's.This is somewhat unfair to Dawson since he played a fair bit in CF

[four tool]

That's the H-factor, baby! </Chris Rock>

Which is explained where?

[Captain Cold Nose]

Which is explained where?

Here's a start:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=80236

[henrich]

Which is explained where?

Sorry four tool, should have explained better. Happy to help if you need me to...I use it as a hall of fame predictor/rating system for me to compare eras. It struggles with the 19th century players and I don't try the NeLeagues though I would think if the stats are readily available it could work there. I also think that PED's will cloud things a bit, and I'm curious about how the writers will react over the next 5 years.

I tried to take the highest games played at a particular position of a player and then I placed them in that position. Did I miss this one, did Dawson play more games at Center? I'll have to check on that, but I have him in RF.

[Cougar]

Dawson played about 200-something more career games in RF than CF. Hence he's usually listed as a RF.

However, while this is a bit subjective, he spent more of his prime seasons as a center fielder, so some people consider him a CF for career assessment purposes, or at least a hybrid CF/RF player.

Reasonable people can approach this either way, I think.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Dawson played about 200-something more career games in RF than CF. Hence he's usually listed as a RF.

However, while this is a bit subjective, he spent more of his prime seasons as a center fielder, so some people consider him a CF for career assessment purposes, or at least a hybrid CF/RF player.

Reasonable people can approach this either way, I think.

Dawson was unable to stay in CF due to injuries; that weighs against him.

I would be much more enthusiatically supporting his candidacy if he had played 75% of his career games in CF.

Although he's still active, Jim Edmonds has a better case than Dawson, IMO, offensively AND defensively. I don't know how people here feel about Edmonds, but I find it hard to justify Dawson's selection if one finds Edmonds unworthy.

[four tool]

Sorry four tool, should have explained better. Happy to help if you need me to...I use it as a hall of fame predictor/rating system for me to compare eras. It struggles with the 19th century players and I don't try the NeLeagues though I would think if the stats are readily available it could work there. I also think that PED's will cloud things a bit, and I'm curious about how the writers will react over the next 5 years.

I tried to take the highest games played at a particular position of a player and then I placed them in that position. Did I miss this one, did Dawson play more games at Center? I'll have to check on that, but I have him in RF.

OK, now I getr it, as a hall predictor it sounds good. As an overall rating, I'm not convinced because of the BA vs. OB and SL questions.

[henrich]

OK, now I getr it, as a hall predictor it sounds good. As an overall rating, I'm not convinced because of the BA vs. OB and SL questions.


Many here at this forum would agree with you on how to utilize the system.

[Cougar]

Dawson was unable to stay in CF due to injuries; that weighs against him.

I would be much more enthusiatically supporting his candidacy if he had played 75% of his career games in CF.

Although he's still active, Jim Edmonds has a better case than Dawson, IMO, offensively AND defensively. I don't know how people here feel about Edmonds, but I find it hard to justify Dawson's selection if one finds Edmonds unworthy.

I dunno Fuzzy...Dawson has at this writing exactly 900 more hits than Edmonds. That's a pretty fair career for some people.

Edmonds' two big advantages over Hawk are (1) he has exceptionally good plate discipline (at least once he got to St. Louis); Hawk's was exceptionally bad; and (2) Edmonds has stayed in CF his whole career, although Dawson remained a plus fielder in RF for what that's worth.

Otherwise, adjusting for era effects, they're pretty even, or Hawk has an edge -- I think Dawson had both a little more power and a lot more speed.

Dawson's knee troubles are usually blamed on Montreal's atrocious artificial turf; just about everyone that played on that crime against humanity ended up with bad knees. I would actually go so far as to posit that's why all the young talent the Expos stockpiled in the late 70's/early 80's never turned out as well as projected (Dawson, Warren Cromartie, Ellis Valentine, Larry Parrish, etc.; even Tim Raines aged pretty early)

That's almost a negative period effect there; in the 70's and 80's, until they both started to phase out turf where they could and replaced it with more forgiving new materials where they couldn't, all kinds of position players had their careers artificially truncated. Edmonds has been durable, but he's also lucky to have played his entire career on grass.

I rather suspect that if Montreal had played on a decent surface, Dawson would have spent much more of his career in CF, and probably would have hit some career milestones that would have made his position a moot point anyway.