What about Dawson?

[pretorius]

I am curious as to what the delegation thinks about Dawson and if he is hall worthy. I think he is. He didnt reach alot of major milestones but as I compare him and say a Dave Winfield I think they are just about equal except for the fact that Dave hit for higher average. My criteria for the hall is usually two fold. I first ask if the player was special and then I see if he has the stats to back it up. Dawson was a special player. I have always seen Dawson as a link between Mays and Bonds. Dawson could run, hit and throw. I know he only had that 1 monster year in 87 but Dawson was a special player. He also didnt play much in the home run and power explosion of the mid to late 90's. I have to think that for the time in which he played that 436 HR, 1577 RBI's, 2,758 hits, 501 doubles, 314 stolen bases, a few gold gloves and more career extra base hits then the likes of men like Schmidt, Hornsby, Wagner, Ernie Banks and many others would qualify him for the hall.

Opinions on the hawk?

[leecemark]

--I would have to say Dave Winfield was a much better player than Andre Dawson. As you say, his BA was a little better. More importantly his OBP was much better. Dawson wouldn't take a walk and ended up with a worse than league average OBP for his career.
--Dawson isn't near the top of my eligible but not in list of RFers. I'd take Tony Oliva, Gavy Craveth, Dave Parker, Dewey Evans, Reggie Smith and Bobby Bonds ahead of him. He probably has a better chance of actually making the Hall than any of them though.
--If Dawson's knee had held up long enough for him to have remained in CF for more of his career I'd like him better. He wasn't as good as Dale Murphy and Freddy Lynn at their best, but lasted longer than either. You could make a case that if he was consdiered as a CF he would be at or at least closer to the head of the line. I am more impressed with his two 2nd place MVP finishes as a CF in Montreal in the early 80s than his undeserved win in 1987 with the Cubs.

[tibber]

i'd vote for him.

[Brad Harris]

Dawson's case would be "sexier" had his knees held up longer from the artificial turf of Stade Olympique. However, given the actual standards of the Hall of Fame as they have existed from 1936-present, I think there is a stronger case for his inclusion than there is for his exclusion.

Dawson made my phantom ballot in the 2004 BBWAA election and I expect he'll do so again this winter. I've got Dawson as the third most deserving outfielder (after Murphy and Rice) in the pending election this Christmas.

[ElHalo]

Dawson, Murphy, Rice... all get no, no, and no.

The eligible outfielders I'd like to see make it in include Sherry Magee, Gavvy Cravath, and... call me if you find somebody else deserving.

[micsmith]

Dawson is the only guy with 1000 career extra base hits that is not in the hall. He's also got the most total bases of guys not in the hall. Almost 1600 RBI, over 400 HR and over 300 stolen bases. Plus the first MVP for a last place team and he had a ton of hits. 8-time all star too. I think he should be in the hall ahead of contemporaries like Harold Baines and Dave Parker.

[leecemark]

--Well I can't argue him deserving it more than Baines and I'm no fan of Dave Parker either. Dawson has alot of points that make him worth considering. His only real negative is that godawfull OBP. He has a reasonable chance of getting the BWAA vote before he runs out of time. Unless the VC becomes a little more sabermetric or goes out of business before he becomes eligible I can't imagine him missing out on that second chance. Baines doesn't deserve a sniff and Parker has no chance of getting the BWAA vote. He will be a storng VC candidate someday too though.

[micsmith]

I think that it is perfectly fine to have major points against you for having some awful stat like Dawson's career OBP, which is admittedly horrendous. But, Reggie Jackson shattered Willie Stargell's (i think) record to become the king of strikeouts and he still leads that list. The top 7 guys on the all-time pitching losses list are in the hall. How many walks did Nolan Ryan give up? Rollie Fingers blew over 100 saves. So I think it is permissable to have some blemishes on your record.

[Eddie Collins]

When Andre was playing, I always felt he was a great player, destined for the HOF. Here are some of his credentials:

He has the most Hits, Total Bases, RBI, and extra base hits of any eligible, non-HOFer. He was an 8 time all-star, ROY, and MVP in 1987 and came in second 2 other times.. He won 8 gold gloves.

Dawson was one of the most complete players in major league history. He did absolutely everything. He hit for power, hence the 503 doubles and 438 homers. He was an excellent defensive player, as his 8 GG's show. He ran the bases well, with 314 stolen bases. He did the little things too, as marked by his having the 39th most HBP, and 7th most sac flies ever. His power speed number is 6th best all time, behind only Bonds, Henderson, Bonds, Morgan, and Mays.

The only big knocks against the Hawk are his strikeouts and lack of walks. But look carefully, and you will see that he really struck 100 or more times only 3 times in 21 years, and only once past age 24.
His OBP, I admit is bad. He wasn't the most patient of hitters. But he surely made up for it in the field, on the bases, and with small-ball execution. In fact, his OBp seems to be the only week spot in his game.

Any thoughts? I know I'd vote for him.

[Ontarioguy]

I would love to see Hawk in the HOF. He was an amazing player who did it all.
MVP, 30-30 man. A career .279 avg. The list goes on as Eddie described.

His resume is very impressive. :lookitup

http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/dawsoan01.shtml

I would love to see him in the hall with an Expos cap on. But he may get in wearing the red white and blue of the Cubs.

[pretorius]

Two players that I have always for some off reason linked (maybe because of Montreal) is Andre Dawson and Tim Raines.

I feel both are somehwat overlooked and both deserve in the hall.

[csh19792001]

When Andre was playing, I always felt he was a great player, destined for the HOF. Here are some of his credentials:

He has the most Hits, Total Bases, RBI, and extra base hits of any eligible, non-HOFer. He was an 8 time all-star, ROY, and MVP in 1987 and came in second 2 other times.. He won 8 gold gloves.

Dawson was one of the most complete players in major league history. He did absolutely everything. He hit for power, hence the 503 doubles and 438 homers. He was an excellent defensive player, as his 8 GG's show. He ran the bases well, with 314 stolen bases. He did the little things too, as marked by his having the 39th most HBP, and 7th most sac flies ever. His power speed number is 6th best all time, behind only Bonds, Henderson, Bonds, Morgan, and Mays.

The only big knocks against the Hawk are his strikeouts and lack of walks. But look carefully, and you will see that he really struck 100 or more times only 3 times in 21 years, and only once past age 24.
His OBP, I admit is bad. He wasn't the most patient of hitters. But he surely made up for it in the field, on the bases, and with small-ball execution. In fact, his OBp seems to be the only week spot in his game.

Any thoughts? I know I'd vote for him.

Eddie, I'm surprised.

Aren't there far more valuable position player candidates? Van Haltren? Santo? Sandberg? Dahlen?

Positives- good speed/homer combo, but for all those hr's and doubles, still a very low relative slugging percentage. He had a tremendous arm, and was a great OFer.

Dawson struck out 3 times for every walk, which is AWFUL. How many positon players in the HOF did that? His OPS+ of 119 is also terribly low.

You mentioned walks- but I don't care about walks if 1)a guy has a high BA, or 2)he doesn't strike out. Unfortunately, Dawson was neither- he was an out machine. Low BA, lots of K's, very few walks, GIDP a lot. Guys like that don't belong in the HOF.

Ironically, he was the diametric opposite of one of your heroes, (Eddie Collins himself.) Collins was all brains, extremely adaptive, and incredibly clutch. Dawson was none of these things.

[leecemark]

--Eddie, I agree Dawson's only real flaw was a poor OBP, but that is a pretty big one to pick if you're going to suck at one area of the game. He was a big star in the 80s before people started really focusing on how important it was not to make so many outs (although you'd think people might always have seen that as a problem). His star fell pretty quickly in the 90s thru today.
--Still as you say, he does have alot of nice counting numbers. I think he has a fair to middling chance of election some day. Whether that would be a good thing or not is debatable. He is solidly in the grey area for me.

[Eddie Collins]

Eddie, I'm surprised.

Aren't there far more valuable position player candidates? Van Haltren? Santo? Sandberg? Dahlen?



Yes, of course they are. He isn't one of the top 10 left out or anything, and Santo, Minoso, and a plenty others have a better case, but he was one of my favorites growing up, and I always thought he was a great player when he was playing. I guess this once again goes back to that issue on the perception of greatness.

[J W]

You are dead-on, EC. I'm sure if you asked anyone one month after he retired if he was a HOFer, you'd get a higher percentage than now.

He's borderline for me, but he makes it in my book. Like the others, the longer I look at him, the less bright his star shines. Ultimately though, his defense does it. From what I see, he deserved his gold gloves.

[dgarza]

although he had 300+ steals, he never was a true 30-30 man .
his counting stats are nice, not overwhelmingly high but still nice.
I'm counting only 2, maybe 2.5, "HOF type years" offensively.
Good OFer

I am pursuaded to vote for him at this point. A few years ago I wouldn't have been.

[Cougar]

It's mind-boggling to me why Dawson isn't in. Yeah, he didn't walk enough. Jeez, get over it.

Despite his low OBP, he was plainly one of the top 10 players in the game for about a 15 year stretch. His career numbers are staggering for a non-inductee, middle of the road for a inductee. Great fielder who spent about half his career in CF, half in RF (he ended up playing about two more seasons in RF so he tends to be considered strictly a corner OF, which is amnesiac).

That is patently a HOF career.

[scottdpops]

Andre Dawson is a Hall of Fame player. Statistics in his Favor,(Rank in all time categories)The second number in parentheses is the ranking of the eligible players that can be voted into the Hall of fame with/against him, and the player(s) that are better than him in that category. Also does not calculate players that were taken off the ballot
Because they did not get listed on 5% of the ballot and were dropped or active players.


438 Homeruns (30) (1)
1591 rbi’s, (28) (1)
4737 Total bases (24) (1)
503 doubles (41) (2) Boggs
300 stolen bases, (1)
111 HBP (39) (1)
1039 Ex Base hits (21) (2) Boggs
2774 Hits (43) 2 (Boggs)
118 – Sacrifice Flies (7) (1)
8 times in the top 10 in slugging %
8 times an all star
8 gold gloves,
ROY in 1977
MVP in 1987

And what are the Statistics against him?

217 GIDP (52) – did you ever see how hard he hit balls? If we wasn’t
such a hustle player, he might have hit into 50 more. How about lets
eliminate all the players that have at least 100 more GIDP’s than Dawson. Stating with
Ripken, Aaron, Yastremski, Winfield, Murray, Rice(Who should be in as well)
Brooks Robinson, Clemente, Al Kaline and Frank Robinson.

A ,279, lifetime average?, Certainly better than the .262 for Ozzie smith
And .267 for Brooks Robinson. Two players that are almost solely in the Hall of Fame for their glove work 13 and 16 gg’s respectively. And there are 3x as many outfielders Competing for the same position as there are SS or 3B,
Should I mention Phil Rizutto and Pee Wee Reese?

His OPS Wasn’t great? He was in the top 10 in the league 6 times in his career.His slugging % was fine, Who was the genius who decided to combine On base Percentage and slugging percentage. Hey I want to make a statistic, lets combine Strikeouts and amount of time that the player was on-deck when the last out was Made in the inning, well call it the PPWODAS. I don’t have a calculator but Dave Kingman should win this hands down right? Didn’t Ed Kranepool bat in front of him?

His OBP wasn’t good and that is his only knock.

If there is ever a year to vote in "Hawk" it would be nice for him to go in with
Wade and the other deserving players like Jim Rice, Dale Murphy, Al Oliver and Ryne Sandberg.

[mac195]

Dawson is part of a big group of '70s and '80s outfileders who are borderline HOF candidates. Reggie Smith, Bobby Bonds, George Foster, Dave Parker, Fred Lynn, Jim Rice, Dwight Evans, Dale Murphy, Jack Clark... Dawson fits somewhere in there. His counting stats are the best of that group, but his rate stats are the poorest, especially OBP. Dawson's gold glove total is impressive, but the fielding stats don't really back that up, so you have to wonder if he was a bit overrated defensively.

[Schadenfreuder]

I'm all for The Hawk...however, let me qualify this statement by saying that I also believe that Larry Walker is HOF material, so, y'know...
What can I say? I'm a fan of five-tool players.

[trosmok]

Yes, of course they are. He isn't one of the top 10 left out or anything, and Santo, Minoso, and a plenty others have a better case, but he was one of my favorites growing up, and I always thought he was a great player when he was playing. I guess this once again goes back to that issue on the perception of greatness.

Couldn't have said it better, EC. Even if the stat crazed BBWAA knuckleheads snub him, the VC probably won't. Dawson was truly a remarkable five tool player, and possessed that intangible sixth (his desire to compete and win) that many writers overlook because they can't see past their keyboards and reference books. The guys that played with and against him will recall he was also a victim of collusion by the owners when they tried collective subterfuge in denying free agents a decent shake. I too, held him in high regard as an Expo, but when he became a free agent and played for the Cubs, essentially without a contract, I was amazed at his work ethic. He basically told the Wrigley gang to just pay him whatever they thought was fair, and he won the MVP on the woeful last place club. Not only was that feat unique, it made me a fan of his for life.

[pesky6]

Dawson struck out 3 times for every walk, which is AWFUL. How many positon players in the HOF did that?

Reggie Jackson?

I don't have his stats in front of me, but I'm willing to bet that Jackson's K/BB ratio isn't great, either.

[Freakshow]

Reggie Jackson?

I don't have his stats in front of me, but I'm willing to bet that Jackson's K/BB ratio isn't great, either.
Jackson would take a walk. His K/W ratio is 1.89. I find six HOF position players worse than that.

2.27 Brock
2.14 Puckett
2.07 Stargell
2.02 Perez
1.99 Cepeda
1.98 Clemente

Among HOFers retired before 1970, George Kelly at 1.80 is the only one worse than 1.40.

[leecemark]

--Strike out rates have gone up consistenty over time. It is a mistake to give too much credit to pre-war (or even pre-60s) players for not striking out much or criticize more recent players for stirking out alot.
--When the strike zone was made smaller in 1963 the trend toward more strike outs exploded and the stigma to it was almost completed erased. Not only were lots of guys now getting 100+ K's a year, many of them were the best players in the game. Baseball men started to realize that the strike out wasn't such a huge negative and that the trade off in bigger power numbers was a net plus for most hitters.
--That said, a player who strikes out alot and doesn't walk really needs to try a new approach. Dawson's hack away approach was a huge flaw in his game (the only one really). His low OBP is the only thing keeping him out of the Hall. Eventually I think his other multiple skills and big counting numbers will over come that and he will get in.

[trosmok]

Reggie Jackson?

I don't have his stats in front of me, but I'm willing to bet that Jackson's K/BB ratio isn't great, either.

Now you have me wondering how Reggie's HR/K ratio stacks up among the HOF guys, and Andre Dawson's, since this thread is about him.

Jackson 563HR/2597K* =0.217
Dawson 438HR/1509K =0.290

*Denotes all-time record

[cubbieinexile]

If Andre had stayed a centerfielder I think his chances at the hall would have been greater. Dawson gets support I think because of his reputation more so then his actual playing stats.

He did not hit for average, he did not get on base, and for a slugger his slugging is mediocre. Andre played in a day when a .500+ slugging made you a "slugger" . Andre finished with a .482 SLG despite the fact that he got to play in Wrigley and Fenway for 8 seasons. Out of 18 full seasons he only crosses the .500 plateau 5 times. The only time he hits more then 32 home runs is in the flukish home run year of 1987 when he hit 49 homers. That year for whatever the reason everybody was hitting home runs.

This is something I wrote awhile back on the Cubs section:
Personally I don't think he should go to the hall of fame but I don't have a vote. So my opinion really doesn't matter.

Since this is a Cubs section and most of us are Cub fans and a little bias to our Cubbies. I believe though that when you talk about national awards such as MVP, Cy Young, or HOF you should put your local favoritism aside and look at it with open eyes. Having said this and knowing what I am going to say next. Let me state that I loved watching Dawson play and was glad he was on our team.

Dawson was a good player not a great player. In fact I believe his best seasons were with the expos not with the Cubs. If you look at his 1987 MVP seasons it isn't all that great. In fact he had better season with the expos then that year. The reason he won the award is because he led the league in HR and RBI's two stats that voters love. Even though those two stats might not be the best indicators of importance. That year he crushed 49 HR's (which is a mind-boggling number back then in the 80's) but only slugged .568 and had a on-base percentage of .329. He couldn't even get on-base a third of the time (also his career OBP is .327). In fact he isn't even in the top five in slugging that year.

Lets look at the traditional stats that most people look at when evaluating players. He only top 100 RBI's 4 times in his 21 seasons. He only tops 100 runs twice. He only hits 30 or more HR's three times. In fact he only avg 21 hrs a season. He only hits over .300 4 times. True he did bat .299 one year, but to credit that then you have to discount the years he batted .301 and .302. He never topped 200 hits, he topped 180 twice. Andre did have a stretch of seven seasons where he did top 20 SB's. Everybody likes to look at his low home run total and say "well he played in a different era. Players didn't hit as many HR's. You have to factor that in." And they are right in saying that. Unfortunatly they don't factor his era in when looking at his SB's. Andre played in an era where it was common for the SB leaders to have 60, 70, 80, 90, or even over 100 SB's in a season. In fact Andre was never in the top 5 in SB's any of those 7 years. In fact we was only slighly above average in SB's those years. To me just looking at the traditional stats reveals nothing truly great about Dawson.

Looking at the non-traditional stats like OBP, Slugging, and BB/K ration reveals even further that Dawson doesn't deserve to go into the hall. From what I understand .500 Slugging is the benchmark for above average hitter. Dawsons career avg is .482, he only tops .500 4 times. His career OBP is .327 he only has 2 seasons above .350. His career BB/K is close to 1/3. Which means for every walk he strikes out three times. Which any stat head will tell you is unacceptable.


To me Dawsons numbers look good or I should say better than they really are because he played long after he should of retired. I personally think he should of retired after the 1990 season. Yeah the next season he hit 31 homers but that was basically all he did. He hung around for six more seasons basically as a spare part or being a name. You take away those six years of padding and he would lose 93 homers and something like 370 RBI's. Granted if you like we can subtract his 91 from that list and say he should of retire after 91 not 90 but still he would padding. Dawson in my view was an all or nothing guy. He would either hit one over the wall, off the wall, into a mitt, or strike out. He was not a complete hitter and it shows in his stats much more than in the retelling of his legend.


Basically this is what I believe to be true. Andre Dawson was a great Cub Player because of his leadership and his persona. He was not however a great Major League Ballplayer worthy of the HOF. A good ballplayer yes, great one no.

[four tool]

I agree with Cubbie in exile. The Hall of Fame is(or should be) about greatness, not counting numbers. And it should not become the Hall of Skill, although it tends that way. Adding people like Dawson and Rizzuto don't do the Hall or baseball any good because they cheapen the hall.

If we ever get a tiered hall I would consider Dawson for a lower tier, but right now I don't want to see a continual dilution of the inductee level, which is too low as it is.

[Jeffn]

I read you message but I'm convince that he should go the hall. If Tony Perez can go, the hawk should be there too.

[four tool]

Jeff, are you saying the Hall should compound mistakes and keep the bar low?
I don't think Perez belongs either, but I can't see saying since player A is in and player B is just as good he should be in also, that just continues the trend of reducing the honor of making the Hall.

[DoubleX]

Jeff, are you saying the Hall should compound mistakes and keep the bar low?
I don't think Perez belongs either, but I can't see saying since player A is in and player B is just as good he should be in also, that just continues the trend of reducing the honor of making the Hall.

But is that fair to the individual player? If Players A and B make the hall (and arguably should not have), and Player C had a very similar, if not slightly more spectacular career, how are they supposed to feel about the snub? By having Players A and B in, the standard for Player C to make the Hall has been set, so it would seem an unfair disrespect to keep him out when others have been rewarded for similar accomplishments.

[cubbieinexile]

Does it matter how they feel? Hall of Fame isn't a right it is a privilege.

If I was a voter I wouldn't have voted for Perez but just because my fellow writers made that mistake I wouldn't compound the mistake by letting in another player who didn't deserve the hall in my eyes just because they made the first mistake.

[DoubleX]

Does it matter how they feel? Hall of Fame isn't a right it is a privilege.

If I was a voter I wouldn't have voted for Perez but just because my fellow writers made that mistake I wouldn't compound the mistake by letting in another player who didn't deserve the hall in my eyes just because they made the first mistake.

That sounds kind of self-righteous though. Who is to say that your standards for the Hall are better and more appropriate than the next guys? Obviously, if a player is elected that you don't feel isn't deserving, your opinion on what constitutes a Hall of Fame career is in the minority. You see it as everyone else making the mistake; perhaps in turn, everyone else sees your standards as the mistake.

I deal with what is. If I feel a player isn't deserving of the Hall, then I will not vote for them. However, if that player meets the Hall standards of 75% of the writers, I'm not going to say that his election was a mistake; if anything I'm going to rethink my position and wonder why I'm in the minority. And in the future, I'll use the new standard in evaluating other players. If Player A's career met the standards of at least 75% of the writers and was thus deemed Hall worthy, I'll take that into account when assessing similar players. I'm not going to be selfish and self-righteous and pretend that I know the absolute standard for the Hall. This doesn't mean that I won't disagree with some choices due to personal prerogative, but it means that I'll use Tony Perez' selection as a means to evaluate Andre Dawson's candidacy. If Perez' career was good enough to meet the approval of 75% of the voters, then I'm going to think why Dawson shouldn't meet that standard. But I, in no way will be judgemental and have the audacity to call the opinion of the majority of my peers a mistake, because there must be reason they all feel that way.

And as for feelings...how would you feel if you worked just as effectively and efficiently as a co-worker, but at the end of the year they were rewarded with a bonus, while you were inexplicably not, despite being similarly productive? Didn't you earn that same respect and acknowledgement as the co-worker? Don't you feel slighted that for some reason he's rewarded while you aren't for doing similar work?

[cubbieinexile]

I am viewing the hall as if I am a lone voter with a single ballot. I would on vote on players who I believe should be in the hall not those that should be in the hall because others are there. Every year to me would be as if the hall was empty and the list of eligibles in front of me was the first potential nominees going into a empty hall. Just because a bunch of people think that Tony Perez is hall worthy doesn't mean I have to, and it doesn't mean I am selfish or self-righteous. The majority of people thought the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe. Doesn't make those who disagreed with the majority wrong.

As for the employement issue that is comparing apples to oranges. The Hall of Fame is not the employer and in fact are a seperate entity founded by a rather rich family to boost tourism in their area. Basically the hall of Fame is an opinion poll. Being passed over for a bonus at work is a whole different ballgame.

[cubbieinexile]

If I was a voter and I had never voted for Tony Perez, not even once, then why should I suddenly use him as a measuring stick when looking at new candidates? Now then if I had voted for Tony Perez then of course I should use Tony Perez as a benchmark since I believe he is a hall of famer. The same should apply to players you voted but have not or never have made the hall. For instance if you are the guy who gave Juan Samuel a hall of Fame vote then this year Concepcion should be on your ballot as well as Ryne Sandberg, as well as Trammell.

[DoubleX]

I am viewing the hall as if I am a lone voter with a single ballot. I would on vote on players who I believe should be in the hall not those that should be in the hall because others are there. Every year to me would be as if the hall was empty and the list of eligibles in front of me was the first potential nominees going into a empty hall. Just because a bunch of people think that Tony Perez is hall worthy doesn't mean I have to, and it doesn't mean I am selfish or self-righteous. The majority of people thought the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe. Doesn't make those who disagreed with the majority wrong.

As for the employement issue that is comparing apples to oranges. The Hall of Fame is not the employer and in fact are a seperate entity founded by a rather rich family to boost tourism in their area. Basically the hall of Fame is an opinion poll. Being passed over for a bonus at work is a whole different ballgame.

I think you missed the point with my analogy. It's about respect, it's about recognition. As a person, shouldn't one receive the same recognition and accolades as another for similar achievements? It seems unfair to reward someone but not another for doing similar things, irrespective if it's a mistake to give the reward in the first place. I couldn't imagine that you or most anyone else wouldn't feel slighted by being passed over for something you deserved based on the standards of others who have been rewarded.

And even though it wasn't your intent, when you say, "Does it matter how they feel? Hall of Fame isn't a right it is a privilege," that does sound self-righteous. It sounds like you are saying that you hold the absolute definition for Hall of Fame standards and view the opinions of everyone who disagrees to be a mistake. You're entitled to your opinions and assesments, just realize that your prerogatives aren't more right or wrong than any of the other voters (which I think you've addressed in your subsequent posts).

[four tool]

If we're going to use the work issue, and I agree that's apples and oranges, we could use a school issue. If teacher A says this paper is a B, but every other teacher says it's an A, should teacher A change his/her grade?
(Think Professor Kingsfield of Paper Chase, for instance).

We should be working to fix the Hall, not just open the floodgates.

[DoubleX]

What does fixing it mean? Does it mean taking out Tony Perez, thereby overuling the opinions of 75% of the actual voters? The fact is that Perez was deemed Hall of Fame worthy and that's not going to change, and thus we need to deal with what is. Tony Perez is forever part of the definition of what it means to be a Hall of Famer, and as such, his part of the definition should at least be considered whenever appropriate (such as Andre Dawson and Jim Rice).

[cubbieinexile]

Going down that road means that eventually Neifi Perez will get in. I choose not to go down that slippery slope. To me the bottom rung shouldn't be the measuring stick of whether or not one goes into the hall. It lowers the standard. How is that good for any organization or business?
"Well Bob you are as good as our worst employee so you've got the job."

Then from there where do you go? Do you also consider what the Vet Com. decided was hall of famer as well?

To me a player should be at least better then the average hall of famer. Actually for me a player has to be within the top 5 of his position all time when he retires for me to be for his election.

I

[DoubleX]

Going down that road means that eventually Neifi Perez will get in. I choose not to go down that slippery slope. To me the bottom rung shouldn't be the measuring stick of whether or not one goes into the hall. It lowers the standard. How is that good for any organization or business?
"Well Bob you are as good as our worst employee so you've got the job."

Then from there where do you go? Do you also consider what the Vet Com. decided was hall of famer as well?

To me a player should be at least better then the average hall of famer. Actually for me a player has to be within the top 5 of his position all time when he retires for me to be for his election.

I

Under your scenario, the opposite effect would happen as the average would keep getting higher until the standard is ridiculously high.

The standards of what constitutes a Hall of Famer are not precisely defined. All sorts of players with varying accomplishments have been deemed Hall of Fame worthy, and it's obvious that a player doesn't have to be Willie Mays or Babe Ruth to make the Hall of Fame. I'm just saying that if a player comes around whose career is comparable to someone in the Hall (in this case, Dawson to Tony Perez), there is obviously a precedent for that type of career being Hall of Fame worthy. I'm not opening the floodgates for the likes of Neifi Perez at all, I'm just considering how players stack up to others in the Hall. Obviously, Neifi Perez isn't going to compare favorably to anyone in the Hall, but Dawson might to Tony Perez and others. So the question I ask myself is if Tony Perez has been deemed Hall of Fame worthy, does Andre Dawson meet that standard as well?

Now would I have put Tony Perez in the Hall in the first place? Probably not. But he's in and will thus be forever part of the definition of what constitutes a Hall of Fame career. And as such, I feel it should be applied when assessing future candidacies. Is Andre Dawson a Babe Ruth or Willie Mays? Certainly not, but the Hall of Fame is much larger than just those types of players. Is Andre Dawson a Tony Perez? Now that's something I have to think about. If after thinking it over, I've decided that Dawson was at least as good, if not better than Perez, than I feel if Perez is in then it's only fair that Dawson is in. We can't ignore what is, and what is and what forever shall be is that Perez is part of the Hall of Fame vernacular.

[cubbieinexile]

Warren G. Harding was the President of the United States, Aaron Burr was the Vice President. Do they set the standard for all future presidents and vice presidents? Should we base our vote for President based on the worst President? In the end you get what you vote for. If you vote based on the minimum then what you get is the minimum. And I have no problem with a ridiculously high standard. I perfer that to a low standard.

[DoubleX]

Warren G. Harding was the President of the United States, Aaron Burr was the Vice President. Do they set the standard for all future presidents and vice presidents? Should we base our vote for President based on the worst President? In the end you get what you vote for. If you vote based on the minimum then what you get is the minimum. And I have no problem with a ridiculously high standard. I perfer that to a low standard.

Now that is certainly comparing apples and oranges since we assess their presidencies (and vice presidencies) in retrospect. The average voter couldn't anticipate that Harding's presidency would be rife with corruption and that Burr's as sitting Vice President would kill one of the most influential people in the nation's history and then plot to form a new nation in the southwest and Mexico. Players are voted into the Hall of Fame based on what they've already done, people are voted into office to empower them to do something (In Burr's defense, he was extremely influential in terms of how political campaigns are run and establishing politicking as we know it, and that's coming from an ardent Hamilton admirer).

Anyway, I think it's clear where we both stand in this discussion, so it's probably not worth debating anymore. Thanks for the good discussion though.

[futurehalloffamer]

I always thought of Dawson as a future hall of famer while he was playing. Ryne Sandberg said he should be elected earlier this year.

[Lipsander]

This man put up great career numbers, all the while being a professional and a great human being. Anyone remember when he got irate and threw bats on the field?....lol. To me, he was Sammy Sosa before there was Sammy Sosa.




21 Seasons: G2627 AB9927 R1373 H2774 2B503 3B98 HR438 RBI1591 BB589 SO1509 SB314 CS109 AVG.279




Awards:
• 1977: National League Rookie of the Year
• 1980: National League Gold Glove at OF
• 1981: National League Gold Glove at OF
• 1982: National League Gold Glove at OF
• 1983: National League Gold Glove at OF
• 1984: National League Gold Glove at OF
• 1985: National League Gold Glove at OF
• 1987: National League Gold Glove at OF
• 1987: National League Most Valuable Player
• 1988: National League Gold Glove at OF




Notes:
- All statistics through the 2004 season.

[The Commissioner]

So do you believe that he should be in the Hall of Fame by now?

[Brad Harris]

1. Dawson is Hall-worthy.
2. Dawson has been one of the 10 most worthy players on the BBWAA ballot every year he's been eligible.

Hence...Dawson should already have been elected by now.

I'm curious how 2007 and 2008 will affect his chances. In 2007 he'll be up against new outfield candidates Gwynn, Canseco and Davis. In 2008, Raines will be added to the ballot. Might be nice to see Dawson and Raines go in together.

[Cougar]

1. Dawson is Hall-worthy.
2. Dawson has been one of the 10 most worthy players on the BBWAA ballot every year he's been eligible.

Hence...Dawson should already have been elected by now.


Amen! :clapping

[STLCards2]

I know the strikeouts are high, and the OB% is a bit low, but the relative power for his era, the speed and the eight Gold Gloves have to stand for something. I like Dawson for the Hall of Fame, but can understand the other side's reasoning as well.

[538280]

I've written about Dawson a number of times. I don't think he deserves to get in. He was a horrible on base guy and his defensive reputation was overblown (he started off as a very good fielder but got injured with the artificial turf in Montreal and wasn't very good the rest of his career. Fortunately for him, he never lost the great defensive rep).

Here are two posts I made on Dawson:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=445761&postcount=13

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=445761&postcount=15

[The Commissioner]

I thought at the time of Dawson's retirement that he was pretty much a shoo-in. Boy, was I wrong. I still believe he deserves to be there and am frankly amazed that he's not. I am sure, though, that some day he will be enshrined. True, he didn't walk a lot. I don't see that trumping his HR and RBI totals, though.

[538280]

I thought at the time of Dawson's retirement that he was pretty much a shoo-in. Boy, was I wrong. I still believe he deserves to be there and am frankly amazed that he's not. I am sure, though, that some day he will be enshrined. True, he didn't walk a lot. I don't see that trumping his HR and RBI totals, though.

His HR and RBI totals really weren't all that great. Only three years over 30 HRs? One over 35? He only finished top 5 in HR four times and RBI twice. His one huge HR/RBI year was mostly a function of him moving into the friendly confines of Wrigley Field. Look at his home/road splits that year:

G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB IBB SO HBP SH SF XI ROE GDP SB CS AVG OBP SLG
Total 153 621 90 178 24 2 49 137 32 7 103 7 0 2 0 7 15 11 3 .287 .328 .568

Home 74 292 45 97 13 2 27 71 16 5 47 3 0 0 0 3 3 6 3 .332 .373 .668
Away 79 329 45 81 11 0 22 66 16 2 56 4 0 2 0 4 12 5 0 .246 .288 .480

[The Commissioner]

I don't know how to respond to that. 400+ HRs and 1500+ RBI are great totals no matter how they were accumulated.

[538280]

I don't know how to respond to that. 400+ HRs and 1500+ RBI are great totals no matter how they were accumulated.

They're not all that great when you didn't post great numbers in those categories season to season, you played in a big hitting era, you played in favorable parks, you were a corner OFer, and you just flat out couldn't get on base throughout your career.

[The Commissioner]

They're not all that great when you didn't post great numbers in those categories season to season, you played in a big hitting era, you played in favorable parks, you were a corner OFer, and you just flat out couldn't get on base throughout your career.

It amazing how there existed a confluence of all of those mitigating factors throughout his career. If people didn't know any better, they might mistakenly look at his numbers and think he had a great career.

[Cougar]

They're not all that great when you didn't post great numbers in those categories season to season, you played in a big hitting era, you played in favorable parks, you were a corner OFer, and you just flat out couldn't get on base throughout your career.

So many inaccuracies, so little time:

"(Dawson) didn't post great numbers in those categories season to season"

--That must be why he has 20 more gray ink points than the average Hall of Famer (164 vs. 144). [cf. Baseball-Reference.com]

"(Dawson) played in a big hitting era"

--Dawson's career spanned 1976-1996. His last season as a full time player was 1992 or 1993. The fireworks didn't start until 1994. The meaningful part of Hawk's career was played in a relatively low run-scoring environment. (Notably, his MVP year in 1987 was an anomalously high scoring year in that era. Ozzie probably should have won instead.)

"(Dawson) played in favorable parks"

--Wrigley, yes. Fenway, yes. But Montreal was generally a little tougher than average for hitters -- and that's where he played most of his prime seasons. (Not to mention how the atrocious Montreal turf was killing Hawk's knees.)

"(Dawson) was a corner OF"

--He played almost half his career in CF, and won half his GG there.

"(Dawson) just flat out couldn't get on base throughout (his) career."

--His BA is OK for a slugger, but he didn't walk enough. I guess you got one here.

But basically, the only valid part of your objection is Hawk's OBP.

I concur with Commish, the OBP is a demerit, but taking his career in totality, it's clearly still a HOF career despite that.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Dawson is a tough one for me. Sometimes I think he belongs in the HoF sometimes I don't. His career .323 OBP and his career 119 OPS+ is rather low for a potential HoF outfielder.

[runningshoes]

--Wrigley, yes. Fenway, yes. But Montreal was generally a little tougher than average for hitters -- and that's where he played most of his prime seasons. (Not to mention how the atrocious Montreal turf was killing Hawk's knees.)

And he only played 196 games at Fenway.

If he had played his entire career in Chicago, we would even be having this discussion.

[plask_stirlac]

He could slug. In some ways it doesn't look like it and .482 isn't that great on its own, but he's 24th in TB with his 25th rank in AB. That's quite good. It just probably isn't HOF worthy.

[rsuriyop]

He could slug. In some ways it doesn't look like it and .482 isn't that great on its own, but he's 24th in TB with his 25th rank in AB. That's quite good. It just probably isn't HOF worthy.

I dunno. His .482 still beats out Winfield's .475 and Murray's .476, both of whom were contemporaries and already enshrined.

[Bench 5]

He's a HOF'er in my book. He was considered the 2nd best overall player in the NL behind Mike Schmidt during the early 80s. He was a true 5 tool player. He had the MVP season in 1987 but he also came in 2nd twice. In 1981 he would have hit 35 plus homers had it not been for the strike.

If he played the bulk of his career in the 90s he would have likely been a sure 40/40 guy a couple times. His balky knees from playing on Astroturf made him fairly immobile late in his career but for most of his career he was a helluva' player.

[digglahhh]

I wouldn't vote for Dawson, for some of the reasons already discussed.

His MVP was a function of Ozzie and Jack Clark splitting the vote.

[Gjm130]

He was at the top of his game in Montreal!!
He should be a hall of famer!!

[yanks0714]

I'm very ambivalent about Andre Dawson. I really liked the guy as player and he seemed to have a lot class, was not controversial, and played the game hard. His knees robbed him of a better overall career.

I tend, rightly or wrongly, to place Dawson with Dale Murphy, Dave Parker, and Jim Rice in the category of good to very good but not great....and not deserving of the HOF.

The 'Hawk' was a pretty decent slugger who garnered RBI's although that category is over-rated because it is so teammate dependant. He had some fairly decent hitters and onbase type guys hit ahead of him to give him the opportunities.
He didn't have a very good OBP, making a ton of outs.

With great regret I have to say 'no' to The Hawk for the HOF. :( :noidea

[538280]

I dunno. His .482 still beats out Winfield's .475 and Murray's .476, both of whom were contemporaries and already enshrined.

Did Winfield and Murray have below average OBPs? Winfield and Murray also had much better peaks than Dawson.

[rsuriyop]

Did Winfield and Murray have below average OBPs? Winfield and Murray also had much better peaks than Dawson.

Well, since the orginal poster had specifically written about Dawson's career SLG (as opposed to his OBP) not quite measuring up to HOF standards, I just thought I'd bust his/her bubble by comparing it to Winfield's and Murray's slightly lower averages. That's all.

By the way, even if Dawson had a lower peak than the other two, he was still a far better defensive player and baserunner.

[four tool]

I waffle about Dawson also, but am convinced that if he played anywhere but Montreal early in his career, he would be in the hall by now. That turf hurt his career.

For once, Chancellor and I agree on a player who isn't in yet and has been retired long enough to be enshrined!:)

[digglahhh]

Again, I wouldn't cringe if Dawson got it, but I don't actively support him. Much of this is based on my conception of the Hall as opposed to the reality of its membership.

[Dontworry]

I dont Understand all the hype players like dawson and rice recieve. They were both solid players in The era's they played in, nothing more.

Here's a short list of players who were superior to both rice and dawson, and I guarantee nobody thinks they are HOFers.

Jimmy Winn, Jack Clark, Chili Davis, Harold Baines, Jose Cruz, Tim Raines, Steve Finley, Will Clark, Larry Walker, John Olerud, Dale Murphy, Al Oliver, Mark Grace, Reggie Smith, Vada Pinson, Norm Cash, Ken Singleton, and albert belle.

[rsuriyop]

I dont Understand all the hype players like dawson and rice recieve. They were both solid players in The era's they played in, nothing more.

Here's a short list of players who were superior to both rice and dawson, and I guarantee nobody thinks they are HOFers.

Jimmy Winn, Jack Clark, Chili Davis, Harold Baines, Jose Cruz, Tim Raines, Steve Finley, Will Clark, Larry Walker, John Olerud, Dale Murphy, Al Oliver, Mark Grace, Reggie Smith, Vada Pinson, Norm Cash, Ken Singleton, and albert belle.

I could respect your opinion that Dawson (along with Rice) may not be HOF-caliber. But I really think that you're selling Dawson a bit short with that last remark. From your list of "superior" players, the only ones that I might put ahead of him are Raines, Walker and Belle.

[yanks0714]

I dont Understand all the hype players like dawson and rice recieve. They were both solid players in The era's they played in, nothing more.

Here's a short list of players who were superior to both rice and dawson, and I guarantee nobody thinks they are HOFers.

Jimmy Winn, Jack Clark, Chili Davis, Harold Baines, Jose Cruz, Tim Raines, Steve Finley, Will Clark, Larry Walker, John Olerud, Dale Murphy, Al Oliver, Mark Grace, Reggie Smith, Vada Pinson, Norm Cash, Ken Singleton, and albert belle.

Tim Raines is an almost sure-fire HOF'er.

Wynn (not Winn), Baines, Clark, Walker, Murphy, Pinson, and Belle all have their supporters. Therefore, your flat statement is not incorrect it is flat out wrong.

[four tool]

What criteria are you using to say any of those players were better than Dawson? Norm Cash had one good year with a corked bat (he admitted it), most of them had shorter careers or worse numbers or both

OH I get it, it's a joke list:laugh

[RuthMayBond]

I dont Understand all the hype players like dawson and rice recieve. They were both solid players in The era's they played in, nothing more.

Here's a short list of players who were superior to both rice and dawson, and I guarantee nobody thinks they are HOFers.

Jimmy Winn,Wynn was not as good as Dawson

<Jack Clark,>

Very close to Dawson but only a CF

<Chili Davis,>

Not as good as Dawson

<Harold Baines,>

see Clark comment

<Jose Cruz,>

ditto

<Tim Raines,>

Have you talked to anybody?

<Steve Finley,>

A 107 OPS+ better than Dawson, good one

<Will Clark,>

Are expectations for CF and 1B the same?

<Larry Walker,>

Jack Clark comment

<John Olerud,>

Will Clark comment

<Dale Murphy,>

Not definitely superior, and a lot want him in the Hall

<Al Oliver,>

Not superior to Dawson

<Mark Grace,>

Will Clark comment

<Reggie Smith,>

Jack Clark comment

<Vada Pinson,>

111 OPS+

<Norm Cash,>

Will Clark comment

<Ken Singleton,>

Jack Clark comment

<albert belle.>

Only if you go completely by peak

[Tigerfan1974]

Just because Dawson has 400 plus HR doesn't mean he is Hall worthy.
Kingman and Darrell Evans have 400 plus each as does Canseco, and none of them are Hall bound. Dale Murphy is in that territory too but his Hall entrance is also questionable. Leave Dawson out.

[csh19792001]

I wouldn't vote for Dawson, for some of the reasons already discussed.

His MVP was a function of Ozzie and Jack Clark splitting the vote.

As usual, in total agreement here. We don't need any more marginals like Dawson (or this other guy that's become a poster boy over at the history forum :)) in the Hall of Fame. The HOF constituency has already almost reached the 200 mark- if we keep electing guys based on "well, he's better than this other (highly questionable inductee) Player X", we'll end up with at least 300, possibly upwards of 400 members not that long from now.

Then it won't be exclusive to the very greatest players ever, thereby belying its own mission and purpose.

[RuthMayBond]

As usual, in total agreement here. We don't need any more marginals like Dawson (or this other guy that's become a poster boy over at the history forum :)) in the Hall of Fame.Well, Dawson was better than that other guy so I don't have a problem putting in Dawson. Now if you put that other guy in, then you have to put Dawson (plus several others) in.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Well, Dawson was better than that other guy so I don't have a problem putting in Dawson. Now if you put that other guy in, then you have to put Dawson (plus several others) in.
I thought Reggie Jackson was already in.
Or did you mean Joe Morgan?

[RuthMayBond]

I thought Reggie Jackson was already in.
Or did you mean Joe Morgan?I thought the reference was to a certain little cannon

[Captain Cold Nose]

I thought the reference was to a certain little cannon
Harry Howitzer?

[digglahhh]

That '87 season and MVP always struck me as odd. It was a fine season, but worthy of an MVP... on a last place team? No way.

Sure, Dawson had the glamour stats, but the tiniest peek below the surface shows all sorts of alarming trends.

First of all, Dawson wasn't even in the top 10 in adjusted OPS. That raises a flag right there. The '87 Cubs could actually hit, so getting on base more would have been to Dawson's, and the Cub's advantage. Dawson in fact had a 129 OPS+, which has to be one of the lowest an MVP has ever had. Even Terry Pendelton in '91, bested him by ten points there. Jack Clark on the other hand registered an OPS+ of 176 that year.

Second of all, Dawson's K/BB ratio was almost 3.5 to 1 that season. In fact he was on base so infrequently, that he only scored 90 runs, despite knocking himself in 49 times on homers, while playing on a team that had a collective OPS+ of over 100.

That season, IMO, is one of the poorer MVP selections.

[abacab]

Well, OPS+ didn't even exist in 1987. But yes, Dawson's selection is indefensible. It almost seems as though so many players had big slugging years, the voters just threw up their hands and picked the guy who had the most HR and RBI. They ignored the fact that he played in maybe the NL's best hitting park. They might even had used the fact that he played on a last place team as an argument in his favor, because the RBI leader usually doesn't come from a last-place team. There were four legitimate MVPs that year: Clark, Ozzie Smith, Gwynn, and Raines; the writers blew it anyway. They did the same in the AL with Bell instead of Trammell.

[csh19792001]

That season, IMO, is one of the poorer MVP selections.

You know, you post here long enough, and eventually you realize that at some point, you've put a ton of time posting on almost every topic that comes up...:)

Awhile back, I looked into Andre Dawson vs. Ozzie Smith in 1987 (considering everything, not just stats), and concluded that it might have been the worst MVP choice of the past 50 years. I still believe think this might very well hold veridical.

[csh19792001]

Jack Clark on the other hand registered an OPS+ of 176 that year.


Ahh, Jack The Ripper. Those were the good old days.... rekindles images of my nascent baseball years.

There was a ton of Boston-NY rivalry during college, and a friend of mine who was quite the raconteur and fanatic Sox fan used to always insist (half tongue-in-cheek) that Jack Clark once HIT that Citgo sign with a HR. The funniest part was us going to Fenway and seeing where that sign is actually located, looking from behind home plate. I remember thinking a conglomerate of Roy Hobbs, Mickey Mantle, and Babe Ruth couldn't fathom of hitting one that far.

Yet Tim still quipped "But I swear to God he hit that friggin sign in the air!!" as he we stood there. :rolleyes:

[RuthMayBond]

Ahh, Jack The Ripper. Those were the good old days.... rekindles images of my nascent baseball years.

There was a ton of Boston-NY rivalry during college, and a friend of mine who was quite the raconteur and fanatic Sox fan used to always insist (half tongue-in-cheek) that Jack Clark once HIT that Citgo sign with a HR. The funniest part was us going to Fenway and seeing where that sign is actually located, looking from behind home plate. I remember thinking a conglomerate of Roy Hobbs, Mickey Mantle, and Babe Ruth couldn't fathom of hitting one that far.

Yet Tim still quipped "But I swear to God he hit that friggin sign in the air!!" as he we stood there. :rolleyes:I remember guys taunting him when he got an almost $8 million contract and then soon declared bankruptcy. (A poor choice for my TEN THOUSANDTH post)

[digglahhh]

Clark doesn't really get mentioned all too much. I would think the SABR crowd would sing his praises more than they do.

[Tigerfan1974]

I dont Understand all the hype players like dawson and rice recieve. They were both solid players in The era's they played in, nothing more.

Here's a short list of players who were superior to both rice and dawson, and I guarantee nobody thinks they are HOFers.

Jimmy Winn, Jack Clark, Chili Davis, Harold Baines, Jose Cruz, Tim Raines, Steve Finley, Will Clark, Larry Walker, John Olerud, Dale Murphy, Al Oliver, Mark Grace, Reggie Smith, Vada Pinson, Norm Cash, Ken Singleton, and albert belle.

How are ANY of these guys SUPERIOR to Rice or Dawson?
I am a huge Cash fan and like a few others on your list, but beating Rice or Dawson? Please!!!!

[RuthMayBond]

How are ANY of these guys SUPERIOR to Rice or Dawson?
I am a huge Cash fan and like a few others on your list, but beating Rice or Dawson? Please!!!!How is Raines superior to Rice?

Rice: 9058 PA, 0.99 Range Factor+, 0x Assist king, 1x Fielding% king, 156 adjusted fielding runs above replacement, 20 adjusted fielding runs above average, 58 SB, 295 EqA, 89.7 WARP, 282 WinShares, and a home advantage which helped his counting stats

Raines: 10359 PA, 1.05 Range Factor+, 3x Assist king, 5x Fielding% king, 197 adjusted fielding runs above replacement, 25 adjusted fielding runs above average, 808 SB, 307 EqA, 121.5 WARP, 390 WinShares

[Tigerfan1974]

How is Raines superior to Rice?

Rice: 9058 PA, 0.99 Range Factor+, 0x Assist king, 1x Fielding% king, 156 adjusted fielding runs above replacement, 20 adjusted fielding runs above average, 58 SB, 295 EqA, 89.7 WARP, 282 WinShares, and a home advantage which helped his counting stats

Raines: 10359 PA, 1.05 Range Factor+, 3x Assist king, 5x Fielding% king, 197 adjusted fielding runs above replacement, 25 adjusted fielding runs above average, 808 SB, 307 EqA, 121.5 WARP, 390 WinShares

Who said anything about Raines????

[RuthMayBond]

Who said anything about Raines????
Who read post #42?

[Tigerfan1974]

Who read post #42?

I am on your side I think. Raines does NOT beat Rice or Dawson.
You are debating the wrong person.

[RuthMayBond]

I am on your side I think. Raines does NOT beat Rice or Dawson.
You are debating the wrong person.I'm saying Raines DEFINITELY beats Rice. And Dawson, but not by as much

[RuthMayBond]

I am on your side I think. Raines does NOT beat Rice.Then explain post #43

[NOMAR22]

Dawson, Murphy, Rice... all get no, no, and no.

The eligible outfielders I'd like to see make it in include Sherry Magee, Gavvy Cravath, and... call me if you find somebody else deserving.

Those 2 guys you mentioned don't deserve to be HOF and shouldn't be compared to HOF candidates like Dawson,Murphy and Rice.

[NOMAR22]

--Well I can't argue him deserving it more than Baines and I'm no fan of Dave Parker either. Dawson has alot of points that make him worth considering. His only real negative is that godawfull OBP. He has a reasonable chance of getting the BWAA vote before he runs out of time. Unless the VC becomes a little more sabermetric or goes out of business before he becomes eligible I can't imagine him missing out on that second chance. Baines doesn't deserve a sniff and Parker has no chance of getting the BWAA vote. He will be a storng VC candidate someday too though.


So Andre Dawson doesn't deserve to be a HOF based only on his OBP? pLEASEEE
How Many Players hit 400 HRS and stole 300 bases and drove more than 1,500 Rbis?

[leecemark]

--Do you actually read these old threads before resurrecting them and making your zero value added comments? My post you quoted endorses Dawson and points out that his ONLY negative is his poor OBP. His OBP is very poor for a Hall of Fame hitter and you can't properly discuss his candidacy without acknowledging that.

[digglahhh]

Hey, we could take arbitrary cut-offs of selected offensive categories to put Steve Finley in exclusive company, it just isn't particularly compelling.

Most XBXs outside the Hall, well then once Dawson is elected, then who do we have to elect next- there will just be a new guy with the most XBHs not in the Hall...

I don't get the Dawson hype. I'm familiar with him. I saw him play. I wasn't particularly impressed. If Dawson is HOFmaterial, Belle should have sailed through with Seaver numbers.

[leecemark]

--But when did you see him play? Do you remember the gimpy RFer or the speedy CFer? I can see not being all that impressed with Dawson's limping along toward his counting numbers, but he was a great ballplayer once too. The beauty of young Andre's play plus the career totals of old Andre make a Hall of Famer in my book.

[DoubleX]

What do most people consider Dawson's primary position to be? The consensus seems to be RF, but I don't understand why not CF? He played just about as many games in CF as in RF, most of his best years were in CF, he won 4 of his 8 GGs in CF, and if not for the terrible turf tearing (yay alliteration!) up his knees, he probably would have played CF for a few more seasons. I consider him in CF and I think that does give his career some more value and puts him just in the Hall for me. As a RFer, I have trouble distinguishing him from Dave Parker, Bobby Bonds, and Tony Oliva, and thus I'm less convinced of his Hall credentials.

[leecemark]

--If Dawson had NOT been a CFer he would be below the Hall line for me, counting stats or no. As I mentioned above, I can see how guys who only saw him later in his career think of him as a gimpy, one dimensional guy. He was anything but that for the Expos before his knees went though.

[Naliamegod]

I didn't relize Dawson played about the same amount of time in CF as RF (I thought he played mostly in the RF and only CF during the earliest parts). That completely changes everything for me. As a RF, he isn't even close. As a CF then he is a solid HoF IMO

[DoubleX]

When we do our positional rankings lists, most of us put Banks at SS, Yount at SS, and Carew at 2B, despite splitting their careers at other positions (and in the case of Banks and Carew, actually playering more time at 1B). We do this because we know these players, Banks and Carew in particular, will lose value if ranked at 1B, and Yount probably slips at least a few spots if ranked in CF. So why not put Dawson where he has his most value? He played 1027 in CF and 1284 in RF. Both Dale Murphy and Jimmy Wynn only played a handful of more games in CF than Dawson. The difference is very similar to Banks' and Carews' splits, and like Banks and Carew, Dawson had his best years at the more challenging position. So if we're going to do it for Banks and Carew and Yount, we should do it for Dawson and put him in CF.

With that in mind, where would people rank Dawson on the CF list? I have him around 10th all-time.

[KCGHOST]

It just comes down to what do you want to believe in: the counting numbers or the quality numbers. The counting numbers make a good case and the quality numbers say "good player, but no more". His OPS+ is "only" 119, his RCAA is at 216 (good but not very good) and his WARP3 is 99.4 (slightly better than Kenny Lofton).

And Dawson played 300 more games as an RF than as a CF.

[DoubleX]

And Dawson played 300 more games as an RF than as a CF.

257 to be exact. Dawson still had most of his best years in CF, he was a GG CF, and he did play 1027 games in CF. I don't see why we don't give Dawson the same CF credit that we give Banks at SS and Carew at 2B. Both of them played more time at 1B.

[538280]

I give Dawson some CF credit, but he's still not a HOFer. He couldn't get on base, made a ton of outs, and although he was a good fielder and runner early on he was pretty bad as he aged. Post 1984, I honestly don't see what makes him much more than an average player. He won the MVP in 1987, but that may have been the worst selection ever (only a few rivals like Sauer in '52 and Marion in '44). His peak is really lacking, not anywhere near as good as Dave Parker. Outside of 1987, he only led the league in one category, that being hits in 1983. I'm not a big fan of ink tests, but his total of 11 is paltry for a half RFer, especially since he played half his career in Wrigley.

I'm with digglahh here. I'm just unable to see what makes this guy all that special.

[iPod]

Isn't there something we can do about this guy?

[DoubleX]

I give Dawson some CF credit, but he's still not a HOFer. He couldn't get on base, made a ton of outs, and although he was a good fielder and runner early on he was pretty bad as he aged. Post 1984, I honestly don't see what makes him much more than an average player. He won the MVP in 1987, but that may have been the worst selection ever (only a few rivals like Sauer in '52 and Marion in '44). His peak is really lacking, not anywhere near as good as Dave Parker. Outside of 1987, he only led the league in one category, that being hits in 1983. I'm not a big fan of ink tests, but his total of 11 is paltry for a half RFer, especially since he played half his career in Wrigley.

I'm with digglahh here. I'm just unable to see what makes this guy all that special.

Special? Probably not. But very good? Certainly. So he couldn't take walks, but that was about the only hole in his game for a decade. He was able to do everything else well, and if not for playing in obscurity in Montreal he may have won another MVP (he finished 2nd twice while playing in Montreal), and his knees would have held up better and he could have continued to play GG CF and be a force on the basepaths. Let's also keep in mind that he played in one of the more offensive depressed eras. His 49 homeruns in '87 were tied for the most in a season between George Foster's 52 in '77 and Cecil Fielder's 50 in '90. As for his career numbers:

- When he retired, and before the glut of players of the steroids era moved past him, Dawson's 438 Homeruns were good for 22nd all-time, and again, almost all of his homeruns came during a period when homeruns were actually at a premium and meant something.

- He has approximately 1600 RBI

- He has approximately 2800 Hits

- He has 300+ SBs

- He has 8 Gold Gloves

- He has an MVP (even if questionable), and two other 2nd place finishes despite playing in near-obscurity in Montreal

With the exception of taking walks, Dawson was skilled at all facets of the game and put up very good all around hitting numbers in an era slanted against hitting. And even despite the turf in Montreal hindering his running and fielding ability (he still managed 4 Gold Gloves after the move to RF and could still swipe double-digit bags), he could still hit.

[Chisox]

I've got him as a HOFer, barely. Those outs ALMOST cost him in my book.

[Bench 5]

He's a HOF'er in my book. Like many of the stars of the 70s and 80s his stats don't look as impressive compared to the stats put up in the past 15 years. But considering that he played in a very competitive league and was a star, I give him the nod. He's not an elite player but he was certainly a great player who had a nice career.

[DodgerBlue8188]

I saw him on that ESPN show tonight and they were talking about him getting into the Hall of Fame. He never hit 500 home runs, but did come rather close. Had 300 stolen bases, an MVP award but no World Series'. Would you vote for him to go to the Hall?

[jalbright]

The way you phrased the poll question makes this harder. I can vote for Dawson, but he's not far above the in/out line as far as I'm concerned, and I can live with the idea he won't get in. In that sense, he certainly doesn't "need" to get into the Hall IMO.

Jim Albright

[KCGHOST]

"Need" to be in the HoF. I guess you'd have to ask Andre. Other than that we have beaten his candidacy to death. The majority say "Yes" but enough say "No".

[brett]

The way you phrased the poll question makes this harder. I can vote for Dawson, but he's not far above the in/out line as far as I'm concerned, and I can live with the idea he won't get in. In that sense, he certainly doesn't "need" to get into the Hall IMO.

Jim Albright

I agree with this assessment.

I'll try to make a case for and against.

For:

in '87 he was MVP and baseball digest player of the year.
was also runner up MVP in both '81 and '83.

1) For starters, that's three years where he was right there. Schmidt and Murphy took control of the MVP races those years, but he was a STRONG (not a suprise) #2 each year.

2) Won 8 gold gloves and by all accounts, most were deserved. When healthy, he probably was the best defensive outfielder of his generation, with the speed to play center and one of the best arms. Although most guys with SEVERAL outfield gold gloves, pick up 1-2 on reputation, he was competing against Murphy, Maddox, McGee, Gwinn (early on) E. Davis and Andy VanSlyke. Whenever I read publications rating the true best defensive outfielders, they consistently confirmed that he was the best and not jsut winning on reputation.

3) When he retired with 438 HRs, the only 400 HR guys who weren't in of going in were Dave Kingman and Darrell Evans. It was almost automatic at the time. Keep in mind that Kingman, take away his homeruns, would have been the worst baseball player in history-slow, stikeouts and maybe the biggest defensive liability of all time. Evans was a HOF afterthought, but he never was a legitimate MVP candidate.

4) He is the only GOOD defensive player with 1500 RBI's not in the hall. In fact, only Baines (a DH) is does not have a decent chance of getting in among 1500 RBI men, and Sosa, Palmero and Jeff Bagwell are the others. I say, if you think that ANY of those 3 should get in, Dawson should be a lock as he played in a much less RBI friendly era, and was superior to these 3 defensively.

5) Almost the exact same case applies for career total bases. Palmero is higher. Everyone else higher is either in or a lock. In fact, the list of the next 15 guys in total bases is:

Yount
Hornsby
Banks
Simmons
Baines
Billy Williams
Rickey Henderson
Anson
Perez
Mantle
Sosa
Clemente
P. Waner
Lajoie
Griffey

6) Only Palmero with 1000 extra base hits is in doubt.

In summary, he's basically one of 20 guys with 4500 total bases, 1500 RBI's and 1000 extra base hits and better than any of those who might not get in.

He probably could have been one of the 2-3 best base stealers of his time if
he wasn't a power hitter. He was 99 for 122 from '80-'82-solidly over 80%.

Against:

1) He went to Chicago in '87 after three consecutive subpar seasons from '84-'86. His MVP in Chicago is overrated, due largly to his Wrigley Field jacked up HR and RBI numbers. Had he drawn a decent number of walks, he wouldn't have lead the league in either one.

2) Made a LOT of outs (.323 on base percentage).

Minus his 49 homeruns in Chicago, he never hit more than 32.
Only had 3 30+ homerun seasons.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Dawson would have been a HOFer if the following occurred:

(A) One of his Expo teams made the World Series
(B) He had been able to stay in CF his entire career
(C) He hadn't had the injuries that caused a mid-career lull prior to his trade to the Cubs

Dawson epitomizes the borderline for HOF outfielders in many ways. The shift to RF and the loss of speed truncated his career to where he begins to look borderline and "When in doubt, don't." becomes a guiding principle.

Dawson's election to the HOF would not be terrible, but he's my idea of a guy who's just short.

[RedSoxVT92]

Andre Dawson does not deserve the HoF. He was a horrible OBP guy who drew very little walks. His career high in walks was 44. And he never really had as much power as alot of people asume. He only hit 30+ homers 3 times over his 21 season career. And he only scored over 100 runs twice and batted in over 100 runs 4 times. Dont get me wrong, he was a very good player but not a HOF player. He is very overated IMO.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Andre Dawson does not deserve the HoF. He was a horrible OBP guy who drew very little walks. His career high in walks was 44. And he never really had as much power as alot of people asume. He only hit 30+ homers 3 times over his 21 season career. And he only scored over 100 runs twice and batted in over 100 runs 4 times. Dont get me wrong, he was a very good player but not a HOF player. He is very overated IMO.

He was a great player at his peak; his peak was limited due to injury. He was the epitome of the 1980s power/speeed guy at one time.

Dawson gets undeserved grief because he won an MVP in 1987 with stats that sabermetricians have a field day taking apart. That's not Dawson's fault. He was the best player on the Expo teams that were contenders, and without Dawson, the Expos would never have contended.

Was Dawson overrated? Guys with truncated careers are always called "overrated" by a portion of observers. It depends on what part of his career you look at. Dawson's best years with the Expos were not years in which he was overrated. His time with the Cubs, well . . .

[538280]

Dawson was a decent slugger who couldn't get on base and wasn't really particularly good at anything. He was a very good player a few years with the Expos, a five tooler (though only because plate discipline is not considered one of the five tools). With the Cubs he was an aging slugger who couldn't walk, a horribly overrated player that part of his career. His 1987 MVP is one of the worst selections of that award of all time. He never had any truly great seasons, he lasted a long time but IMO wasn't all that valuable. No HOF for Andre IMO.

[sturg1dj]

he hit, fielded, and ran well. He played for historically bad teams, and with the Expos actually had some success. Look at his numbers.....with those numbers and the gold gloves (which I am a sucker for) he should be in

[brett]

That's what I went in thinking, but I may be changing my mind. As far as his total production of 4787 TBs, 1039 extra base hits and 1591 RBI's he would clearly have the most total gross production of anyone not in or pretty likely to go in except for possibly Baines. In fact he ranks 21st and 24th in those three categories, and if you scroll down through the top 40 in each category, you run into only about 3 guys who might get left out (based on performance): Baines, Parker, McGriff. With that in mind, 8 gold gloves has to stand for something-especially in a generally run-sparse era, as does hit 314 steals.

2 other things:

1) The ballpark adjusted league slg% for his career was a paltry .396, and VERY low in his years in Montreal. Upgrade that to today's percentages and he would be in the .530-.540 range which would be very hard to ignore.

2) If he had been a pure contact hitter at the same relative level, and hit say .305 but without the power, he would have had 3000 hits, which is still automatic.

From about '80 to '87 there were really 4 guys who were consistently regarded as the big guns: Schmidt, Murphy, Dawson and Gary Carter.

By the way, what do y'all think about Joe Carter: 10 100 RBI seasons was incredible during that period, but a .306 lifetime on base percentage?

Dawson would have been a HOFer if the following occurred:

(A) One of his Expo teams made the World Series
(B) He had been able to stay in CF his entire career
(C) He hadn't had the injuries that caused a mid-career lull prior to his trade to the Cubs

Dawson epitomizes the borderline for HOF outfielders in many ways. The shift to RF and the loss of speed truncated his career to where he begins to look borderline and "When in doubt, don't." becomes a guiding principle.

Dawson's election to the HOF would not be terrible, but he's my idea of a guy who's just short.

[538280]

he hit, fielded, and ran well. He played for historically bad teams, and with the Expos actually had some success. Look at his numbers.....with those numbers and the gold gloves (which I am a sucker for) he should be in

He only fielded and ran well for half of his career and he didn't hit particularly well for a suppsed HOF corner OF. 119 OPS+ is NOT HOF caliber number from a corner OF. His impatience at the plate and unwillingness to take a walk costs him dearly. If he would have gotten his OBP up, I would call him a HOFer. I can't when he couldn't get on base. His other skills are not so overwhelming.

[digglahhh]

I agree with Chris here. I find it ironic that people consider Dawson one of the HOFs most glaring omissions and use it as evidence of the illegitimacy of the HOF. Dawson, IMO, shouldn't be anywhere near the HOF. Rice and Dawson are often used as the contemporary posterboys of the Hall's stupidity, when in fact both of their non-admissions are actually TESTAMENTS to the HOF and examples of some of their FINER decision making.

Unlike Chris, I did see a lot of his career, though. I know he was FEARED by many pitchers, but that works both ways. To be so feared and to STILL not be able to get on base via the walk speaks volumes about Dawson's approach at the plate. With that type of approach you need to really be able to hit for average, like a Vlad Guerrero, to overcome and put up a good OBP. In fact Vlad is kind of like a rich man's Dawson, he is a kind of like what people think Dawson was, a true dominant force, all around player and clear HOFer...

Also, I believe that only 3 of those GGs were won at CF for Dawson, but I'm sure somebody else here knows for sure.

[538280]

Couldn't agree more, Digs. People always complain about the HOF voters' lack of sabermetric knowledge, and in many cases they're right. But as long as they continue to keep Dawson and Rice out I'll be happy with them.

I don't like Dawson for the HOF at all, but he probably would be a better selection than Rice. He lasted longer and was a much better fielder.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Similar Batters View in Pop-up
Compare Stats
Billy Williams (892) *
Tony Perez (886) *
Dave Parker (865)
Al Kaline (859) *
Harold Baines (851)
Dwight Evans (834)
Ernie Banks (829) *
Dave Winfield (827) *
Vada Pinson (810)
Fred McGriff (797)

That's 5 HOFers out of 10 in Dawson's best comps. McGriff is a possible 6th. Those are pretty good comps for a guy many think shouldn't even get a HOF look-see.

[538280]

I've said this a number of times before, but.....I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY don't care about similarity scores. They do nothing basically but compare a player's career totals and defensive position, and that just doesn't make any sense. They pay no attention to any contexts, they don't pay attention to defensive ability, one of Dawson's huge drawbacks, that puts him below just about every player on his comp list, is his complete inability to take a walk. Similarity scores may include that, but if you want a true value comp (which is what you want in HOF discussions) that's a huge difference.

To me, these siimilarity scores just don't mean a thing.

[leecemark]

I've said this a number of times before, but.....I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY don't care about similarity scores. They do nothing basically but compare a player's career totals and defensive position, and that just doesn't make any sense. They pay no attention to any contexts, they don't pay attention to defensive ability, one of Dawson's huge drawbacks, that puts him below just about every player on his comp list, is his complete inability to take a walk. Similarity scores may include that, but if you want a true value comp (which is what you want in HOF discussions) that's a huge difference.

To me, these siimilarity scores just don't mean a thing.


--Walks are nice, but they are hardly the most important thing a player can do. The ONLY real knock on Dawson is that he was unwilling to take the BB (and of course the damage that did to his OBP). As for defense, Kaline is the only player on the similarity list clearly better with the glove than Dawson (couple others are close, but the top guy is not - nor are several others).

[digglahhh]

Don't think of walks as substitutes for hits, think about them as alternatives to outs.

I know you are very knowledgable Mark, and it may seem even rude for me to state such the obvious to you. But think for a second about how many outs Dawson made over the course of his career, how many outs that could have been avoided with some dicipline. According the the BR leaderboard, his career OBP be good for the 47th highest BA of all time.:eek:

Fittingly his .323 OBP is 1 point below Vlad's career .324 AVG, though that will fall a bit over the next few seasons.

[leecemark]

[QUOTE=digglahhh]Don't think of walks as substitutes for hits, think about them as alternatives to outs.

--They are both really. Free swingers generally make more outs and also get more hits than more disciplined types. When I say Dawson's only negative is his unwillingness to take a walk perhaps I should add that it is a big negative. I just think his overall package is good enough to overcome that.

[brett]

Don't forget about the affect of drawing a walk on the pitch count of the opposition. Working 4 pitches per plate appearance does not always translate into walks but a walk does use up at least 4 pitches.

Don't think of walks as substitutes for hits, think about them as alternatives to outs.

I know you are very knowledgable Mark, and it may seem even rude for me to state such the obvious to you. But think for a second about how many outs Dawson made over the course of his career, how many outs that could have been avoided with some dicipline. According the the BR leaderboard, his career OBP be good for the 47th highest BA of all time.:eek:

Fittingly his .323 OBP is 1 point below Vlad's career .324 AVG, though that will fall a bit over the next few seasons.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'm truly on the fence with Dawson. Drawing walks is one thing he didn't do well, but that's such a key thing to not do well. If he drew more walks and hit fewer HRs he may well have been a more valuable player, in that the increased time on base may have made better use of his speed. Dawson was a great defensive player in his best years, but his knees did force him to RF once he hit 31, so he doesn't get all that much of a position bonus. I'd be more enthusiastic on Dawson if he played CF his entire career, but that didn't happen.

[538280]

--They are both really. Free swingers generally make more outs and also get more hits than more disciplined types. When I say Dawson's only negative is his unwillingness to take a walk perhaps I should add that it is a big negative. I just think his overall package is good enough to overcome that.

What is his overally package? He was a good slugger, but his SLG is not really good enough to make him a HOF level hitter for a corner OF. 119 OPS+ is ridiculously low for a HOF OFer. He didn't hit for a particularly high BA, and was a very good fielder the first half of his career, not so much the 2nd half. Dawson was not the quality hitter that I want for a HOF OFer, and I don't see how he makes that up anywhere else. He was not a great and dominant player at his peak like Dave Parker or Dale Murphy.

Like I said, better him than Rice though.

[brett]

I'm truly on the fence with Dawson. Drawing walks is one thing he didn't do well, but that's such a key thing to not do well. If he drew more walks and hit fewer HRs he may well have been a more valuable player, in that the increased time on base may have made better use of his speed. Dawson was a great defensive player in his best years, but his knees did force him to RF once he hit 31, so he doesn't get all that much of a position bonus. I'd be more enthusiastic on Dawson if he played CF his entire career, but that didn't happen.

If he had been more selective, and actually looked for HIS pitches instead of swinging at anything he could put in play (or not) he would have hit MORE homeruns.

[brett]

What is his overally package? He was a good slugger, but his SLG is not really good enough to make him a HOF level hitter for a corner OF. 119 OPS+ is ridiculously low for a HOF OFer. He didn't hit for a particularly high BA, and was a very good fielder the first half of his career, not so much the 2nd half. Dawson was not the quality hitter that I want for a HOF OFer, and I don't see how he makes that up anywhere else.

Like I said, better him than Rice though.

It comes down to this. When he retired, and people were saying that there was a good chance that he would not get in, I thought-great, they are finally going to draw a line between the good and the great. Unfortunately, that line has been crossed more greviously to put others in. If Mazeroski is a hall of famer, so is Dawson. They both are not.

[brett]

Also, how does he compare to Murphy and Gary Carter? I ask, because behind Schmidt, these two and Dawson were the three guys in the National League who you knew were going to be hitting in the 3 or 4 spot every night for most of the decade.

And what's the take on McGriff around here?

By the way, Joe Carter had 10 100 RBI seasons, and only a .302 OBP!

[538280]

Also, how does he compare to Murphy and Gary Carter? I ask, because behind Schmidt, these two and Dawson were the three guys in the National League who you knew were going to be hitting in the 3 or 4 spot every night for most of the decade.

Not within probably 150 spots of Carter (literally). Carter's slugging abilities were about the same as Dawson's, and he coudl take a walk, so he was a more effective hitter. And that completely leaves out the fact that he was a catcher, and a great defensive one at that. Murphy was a dominant player at his peak. I really don't think he deserved any of his MVP awards, but he was a legitimate choice (unlike Dawson in '87), and he had some good years around that. Not so sold on Murphy for the Hall, but he was quite a bit better than Dawson.

And what's the take on McGriff around here?

Should be in the HOF. Consistenly very good hitter from 1B, lasted a very long time, was a great hitter at his peak. 134 OPS+ shows he was a true impact hitter (unlike Dawson).

By the way, Joe Carter had 10 100 RBI seasons, and only a .302 OBP!

Classic type player overrated by RBI, though it is true he drove in more runs that would be expected given the situation. Underrated by sabermetric people, but still generally overrated.

[Cougar]

When I say Dawson's only negative is his unwillingness to take a walk perhaps I should add that it is a big negative. I just think his overall package is good enough to overcome that.

This is a pretty good summation of my feeling. Dawson was an unreal force in the game for a very long time. His overall package was GG fielding, superb baserunning, power, usually a good BA, and a rep as a top intangibles guy. (Plus a deep-seated unwillingness to take ball four, granted.) His counting stats are such that should he not get in, he'll bar the door for a number of other players. The low walk rate alone just doesn't justify that.

[Madallion]

I am in the camp the believes that Andre Dawson should be inducted into the HOF. 400 plus HR, 300 plus SB , 8 gold gloves. and i can't recall right of hand the RBI's'. So i'm wondering what is everyones thoughs on his chances and if you think he should be in.



Madallion

[KCGHOST]

We have had numerous threads on Andre Dawson. We are split in the same ratio as the BBWAA (50%-60% in favor). See thread below.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=46449

[brett]

I have gone back and forth on Dawson. I decided to try to make an argument FOR and it looked pretty strong in retrospect, basically that if you look at the three big all time counting stats: Total bases, extra base hits and RBI, he is in the top 25 in all 3, and there are very few cases of guys above him in any of the three categories who are not in. Only Harold Baines is possibly above him overall in the three big stats, and not going in.

Then he has an MVP, and 2 runner up finishes, and was a very strong runner up in those two years.

And 8 gold gloves.

The counter arguments were that he had a poor on base percentage, his MVP was not deserved and that he was great defensively for 3-4 of his Gold Gloves and won the rest on reputation after he had lost a couple of steps.

I really agree with all of the counter arguments, but there are counter arguments to every good players numbers so you decide.

[Dr. Generosity]

A compelling argument some folks might overlook is Andre's extraordinary contribution to the game, in two countries, PLUS his outstanding character and fortitude. Can you imagine Andre taking the the easy way out with steroids? Andre was the straightest arrow in baseball, and on some pretty drugged-out Expos teams, too.

The sportswriters could send a message this year by (a) not electing in juiced players, at least in their first year of eligibility; and (b) selecting a guy like Andre, whose career and life present a sterling example of how to play the game fairly and with guts.

[Skin & Bones]

A compelling argument some folks might overlook is Andre's extraordinary contribution to the game, in two countries, PLUS his outstanding character and fortitude. Can you imagine Andre taking the the easy way out with steroids? Andre was the straightest arrow in baseball, and on some pretty drugged-out Expos teams, too.

The sportswriters could send a message this year by (a) not electing in juiced players, at least in their first year of eligibility; and (b) selecting a guy like Andre, whose career and life present a sterling example of how to play the game fairly and with guts.

Can you imagine Andre taking the the easy way out with steroids?

This is a common misconception.

[Madallion]

A compelling argument some folks might overlook is Andre's extraordinary contribution to the game, in two countries, PLUS his outstanding character and fortitude. Can you imagine Andre taking the the easy way out with steroids? Andre was the straightest arrow in baseball, and on some pretty drugged-out Expos teams, too.

The sportswriters could send a message this year by (a) not electing in juiced players, at least in their first year of eligibility; and (b) selecting a guy like Andre, whose career and life present a sterling example of how to play the game fairly and with guts.


I'm in agreement. He was and remained a great example to young players on how to conduct themselves. So why is it that the HOF voter not only have overlooked the stats but his overalll persona?


Madallion

[Skin & Bones]

I'm in agreement. He was and remained a great example to young players on how to conduct themselves. So why is it that the HOF voter not only have overlooked the stats but his overalll persona?


Madallion

So why is it that the HOF voter not only have overlooked the stats

What have they overlooked ?

His career .323 OBP ?

[Madallion]

So why is it that the HOF voter not only have overlooked the stats

What have they overlooked ?

His career .323 OBP ?


The OBP would be the only concern that i see. Overall i know i have less knowledge then most here when it comes to these adjusted stats and what not. But the fact remains 400HR,300 SB and yes i know i use this argument to much. BUt i can't find a real justified reaon for him not to be elected. And i'm more then willing to hear why not. As i've sad before i'm bias though lol


madallion

[Skin & Bones]

The OBP would be the only concern that i see. Overall i know i have less knowledge then most here when it comes to these adjusted stats and what not. But the fact remains 400HR,300 SB and yes i know i use this argument to much. BUt i can't find a real justified reaon for him not to be elected. And i'm more then willing to hear why not. As i've sad before i'm bias though lol


madallion

The guy really wasn't that good of a hitter. HIS MVP's were undeserved, and so were most ( if not all) of his goldgloves. Bobby Bonds is more deserving than this guy, and he'll never sniff the HOF.

[JimAbbott]

I'd like to weigh in on this one if I may. We see a lot of threads about the worthiness of guys like Reggie Smith, Ronny Cey, Dick Allen etc. These dudes are not even close to deserving. I am pleased to see this thread about a deserving guy and a guy who will be inducted. Andre Dawson should be enshrined no questions asked. 2774 hits 438 HRs and 1591 RBI are hall numbers. Put him in there with Baines and McGriff. These guys are hall of famers. case closed

[Skin & Bones]

Baines and Dawson more deserving than Allen ?

What???

[brett]

I decided to run a few contemporaries through my league/ballpark adjusted offensive system. I haven't run these guys through my updated system yet. The number is in game equivalent value produced only on offense.

Rice: +27.9
Gary Carter: +39.4
Dale Murphy: +48.6
Dawson: +56.5
Murray: +80.9
Winfield: +81.7

Typically a +50 game eq. offensive rating puts an average defensive player right on the HOF border. None of these guys would be MUCH if any above average on defense because of their position. Murray, despite being a good defensive first baseman would still be below average as a defensive player because of position but would still be in for sure. Winfield would be a no-doubter. Murphy and Dawson are about as borderline as anyone can possibly be. Gary Carter would easily be in given position and defense. Rice is not even in the conversation.

Mike Schmidt, for comparison's sake is in the +140s on offense and would be way ahead of any of these guys on defense.

[digglahhh]

Abbot,

If you want to set the bar higher than Reggie Smith, I'm all for that.

If you want to set the bar higher than Dick Allen, be my guest.

But if you do, how do let Harold Baines waltz in?

[JimAbbott]

would you believe for longevity?

[ESPNFan]

Can you imagine Andre taking the the easy way out with steroids?

This is a common misconception.

Well please explain it (again)so we can all hear how hard steroid users "work" at cheating....:rolleyes:

[candy curveball cummings]

I'd like to weigh in on this one if I may. We see a lot of threads about the worthiness of guys like Reggie Smith, Ronny Cey, Dick Allen etc. These dudes are not even close to deserving. I am pleased to see this thread about a deserving guy and a guy who will be inducted. Andre Dawson should be enshrined no questions asked. 2774 hits 438 HRs and 1591 RBI are hall numbers. Put him in there with Baines and McGriff. These guys are hall of famers. case closed

Case Closed? I beg to differ. No, I don't even beg. I don't need to ask your permission, I straight differ. First off, McGriff was a rent-a-player who was good for a while, but never great. The only time he was the best player on his own team was in '98 and '99 when he was a very pathetic expansion team called the Devil Rays. McGriff is a shoe-in for the Hall of Very Good, but by no means is a Hall of Famer.

Harold Baines. Here's a guy I'm not sure I'd even put in the Hall of Very Good, just in the Hall of Longevity. Baines has an OPS+ of 120. Tim Salmon's got a higher OPS+ then that! Sure he has over 1600 RBI, but only twice did he have more than 100 in a season (that's as many times as Salmon has done it too). Sure he has 384 Home Runs, but he never hit 30 in a season (something Salmon has done 5 times.) What have we learned here? Tim Salmon is very underrated and Harold Baines is not a Hall of Famer.

Andre Dawson. I'm okay with putting him in the Hall of Fame, but there's a whole list of people in front of him. This include Dick Allen. Now we can close the case.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I go back and forth on Dawson. If he had been a career center fielder, I'd say yes. He played more games in RF than CF, so I'm dubious. There's a line ahead of him, and that's the bottom line at this point. I personally think Vada Pinson and Fred Lynn have better cases, and they aren't even at the front of the line.

[Skin & Bones]

Case Closed? I beg to differ. No, I don't even beg. I don't need to ask your permission, I straight differ. First off, McGriff was a rent-a-player who was good for a while, but never great. The only time he was the best player on his own team was in '98 and '99 when he was a very pathetic expansion team called the Devil Rays. McGriff is a shoe-in for the Hall of Very Good, but by no means is a Hall of Famer.

Harold Baines. Here's a guy I'm not sure I'd even put in the Hall of Very Good, just in the Hall of Longevity. Baines has an OPS+ of 120. Tim Salmon's got a higher OPS+ then that! Sure he has over 1600 RBI, but only twice did he have more than 100 in a season (that's as many times as Salmon has done it too). Sure he has 384 Home Runs, but he never hit 30 in a season (something Salmon has done 5 times.) What have we learned here? Tim Salmon is very underrated and Harold Baines is not a Hall of Famer.

Andre Dawson. I'm okay with putting him in the Hall of Fame, but there's a whole list of people in front of him. This include Dick Allen. Now we can close the case.


First off, McGriff was a rent-a-player who was good for a while, but never great.

How was Mcgriff " Never great " ?

[538280]

First off, McGriff was a rent-a-player who was good for a while, but never great.

How was Mcgriff " Never great " ?

I agree. I think players who remain at a consistent level over a long period of time tend to get passed off as only longevity and never being truly great. McGriff is an example of this. So is Eddie Murray, Rafael Palmeiro, Pete Rose, even Hank Aaron to some extent. I find it hard to see how McGriff wasn't great in 1989, 1992, and 1994 at least.

I think McGriff should make the HOF, but one thing that I think will hurt him is that he was in his prime in the late 80s/early 90s, before the recent HR explosion began. Given how the BBWAA still seems to not really understand adjusting for context, those things will hurt his chances.

[Skin & Bones]

I agree. I think players who remain at a consistent level over a long period of time tend to get passed off as only longevity and never being truly great. McGriff is an example of this. So is Eddie Murray, Rafael Palmeiro, Pete Rose, even Hank Aaron to some extent. I find it hard to see how McGriff wasn't great in 1989, 1992, and 1994 at least.

I think McGriff should make the HOF, but one thing that I think will hurt him is that he was in his prime in the late 80s/early 90s, before the recent HR explosion began. Given how the BBWAA still seems to not really understand adjusting for context, those things will hurt his chances.

I completely Agree.

[leecemark]

--McGriff I support. He was one of the primier HR hitters in baseball for a decade. Unfortunately for him, his peak ended just as HR totals exploded and his seasonal numbers don't look as impressive as they should. Harold Baines shouldn't get a vote. If he mays the Hall, that will be good reason to stop caring who is in.

[JimAbbott]

Dawson has the numbers, he will get in and deserves to be in. Baines gets in on longevity, hit and RBI total and life avg. Dawson is like a Billy Williams situation. Once these 2 guys are in, Pinson goes back to being the highest hit guy who will never get in, followed by Oliver, Alomar, Staub, Buckner and Parker. All those guys won't get in. You're not going to keep Baines and his 2866 hits and 1628 RBIs out, no way no how. Oh and McGriff will be a shoe-in

[candy curveball cummings]

I agree. I think players who remain at a consistent level over a long period of time tend to get passed off as only longevity and never being truly great. McGriff is an example of this. So is Eddie Murray, Rafael Palmeiro, Pete Rose, even Hank Aaron to some extent. I find it hard to see how McGriff wasn't great in 1989, 1992, and 1994 at least.

I think McGriff should make the HOF, but one thing that I think will hurt him is that he was in his prime in the late 80s/early 90s, before the recent HR explosion began. Given how the BBWAA still seems to not really understand adjusting for context, those things will hurt his chances.


I'll give you those three years. He was great in 1989, 1992, and 1994. I actually didn't compare statistics when I wrote that, which even at the time, I knew was foolish of me. I don't think McGriff is a shoe-in, as someone said, and in fact I don't think he will get in. Should he? Yeah, I guess. Certainly him more than Harold Baines, who needs to stay out. By the way, JimAbbott said something about Baines getting in on "life avg.". I hope he doesn't mean batting average. Personally, I don't find .289 to be too fantastic. As I said before, Tim Salmon is by no means a hall of famer, Tim Salmon has been a better player than Harold Baines. I'm okay with putting guys in who were very good for a while, but Baines was just a little above average for the majority of his lengthy career. He's not a Hall of Famer.

[leecemark]

--Baines was a slightly above average hitter with ZERO defensive value and little to offer on the bases for most of his career. Just say no.

[candy curveball cummings]

--Baines was a slightly above average hitter with ZERO defensive value and little to offer on the bases for most of his career. Just say no.


Thank You Leecemark, for being a voice of reason.

[JimAbbott]

A guy with 1628 RBI and 2866 hits kept out of the hall? LOL, not a chance. Baines gets in for sure

[538280]

A guy with 1628 RBI and 2866 hits kept out of the hall? LOL, not a chance. Baines gets in for sure

:laugh :laugh

Seriously, man, does anything outside of counting stats (and raw ones at that-you seem to be completely ignorant of context adjustments as well) mean anything to you?

[candy curveball cummings]

A guy with 1628 RBI and 2866 hits kept out of the hall? LOL, not a chance. Baines gets in for sure

Let me ask you this: You put Baines in, do you put Edgar Martinez in? Better numbers outside of RBI and Hit totals.

[JimAbbott]

There is a case to be made for edgar. His .312 avg helps his cause but he's light on HRs RBIs and hits. .515 SLG and .418 OBP are solid and he has 2 batting titles under his belt. Might have to put the guy in there

[candy curveball cummings]

There is a case to be made for edgar. His .312 avg helps his cause but he's light on HRs RBIs and hits. .515 SLG and .418 OBP are solid and he has 2 batting titles under his belt. Might have to put the guy in there

Well, .418 is a little better than a "solid" OBP. Only 20 guys in the history of the game have bettered that.

The reason why I bring Edgar Martinez up is because Harold Baines was mostly a DH. Edgar Martinez has better numbers, outside of counting stats, than Harold Baines does. Really, all other stats show Edgar Martinez to be a FAR superior player than Baines.

[shawnofthedead]

As a native Marylander, I was a huge fan of Baines. He was from the area and had several tours of duty with the Orioles. He also is one of helluva nice guy. That being said, Harold doesnt belong in the Hall, he hung around forever and was a truly one dimensional player after he busted up his knees in the early 80's. He could fall out of bed and hit a line drive but couldnt play the field, run, or do much of anything else.

As for Dawson I really think he belongs, while perhaps overated in the field he did indeed deserve most of those 8 gold gloves. Not to mention Andre was a burner on the basepaths until he knees gave way after his first 7-8 years in the league. If not for that damn Olympic stadium concrete field that destroyed his ligaments, he would have stolen 500 bases. His hitting speaks for itself, Reggie Jackson and Willie Stargell struck out a lot and hit into double plays too, I wouldnt say they dont belong. Another guy who I think really suffers due to the inflated steroid era which came at the end of the Hawks career. Kind of hard to say Hawk belongs when guys who look like pro wrestlers are hitting 70 a year:mad:

[Skin & Bones]

As a native Marylander, I was a huge fan of Baines. He was from the area and had several tours of duty with the Orioles. He also is one of helluva nice guy. That being said, Harold doesnt belong in the Hall, he hung around forever and was a truly one dimensional player after he busted up his knees in the early 80's. He could fall out of bed and hit a line drive but couldnt play the field, run, or do much of anything else.

As for Dawson I really think he belongs, while perhaps overated in the field he did indeed deserve most of those 8 gold gloves. Not to mention Andre was a burner on the basepaths until he knees gave way after his first 7-8 years in the league. If not for that damn Olympic stadium concrete field that destroyed his ligaments, he would have stolen 500 bases. His hitting speaks for itself, Reggie Jackson and Willie Stargell struck out a lot and hit into double plays too, I wouldnt say they dont belong. Another guy who I think really suffers due to the inflated steroid era which came at the end of the Hawks career. Kind of hard to say Hawk belongs when guys who look like pro wrestlers are hitting 70 a year:mad:

The " steroid era " really has nothing to do with why Dawson doesn't belong. Did it ever occur to you that he may not be good enough ?

[brett]

I am not a Baines HOF supporter, but he actually played over 1000 games in the outfield and was mentioned as a plus defender at one point. He averaged over 10 outfield assists for 6 years and had 15 in his last season while fielding above the league average. Funny because that was his last year as a regular in the outfield.

Also, it may be hard to believe but from '82 to '87 he was among the top players voted on by his peers as the most dangerous hitter in the league-ranking behind Brett, Murray and later Mattingly, but finishing 3-4 each year in a poll done by baseball digest.

But Edgar Martinez is way ahead. a 156 OPS+ puts him in very select company especially through about 9000 plate appearances.

--Baines was a slightly above average hitter with ZERO defensive value and little to offer on the bases for most of his career. Just say no.

[Skin & Bones]

I am not a Baines HOF supporter, but he actually played over 1000 games in the outfield and was mentioned as a plus defender at one point. He averaged over 10 outfield assists for 6 years and had 15 in his last season while fielding above the league average. Funny because that was his last year as a regular in the outfield.

Also, it may be hard to believe but from '82 to '87 he was among the top players voted on by his peers as the most dangerous hitter in the league-ranking behind Brett, Murray and later Mattingly, but finishing 3-4 each year in a poll done by baseball digest.

But Edgar Martinez is way ahead. a 156 OPS+ puts him in very select company especially through about 9000 plate appearances.

Edgar's career OPS+ is 147.

[538280]

The " steroid era " really has nothing to do with why Dawson doesn't belong. Did it ever occur to you that he may not be good enough ?

This is very true. If Andre Dawson were elected, his relative OBP would be the WORST of any OFer in the HOF. Of course, Dawson had a long career, so this is somewhat misleading, but then his OBPs were always pretty horrible. He was a decent power hitter, but not a world beater there. He was good defensively the first part of his career, in CF, but his lost that defensive ability to age and moved to RF. In RF he no longer was good defensively. In Chicago he was a low BA hitter who couldn't get on base to save his life, but did occansionally hit some HRs out of that bandbox park. He realy was not much more than an average performer there (sorry, that MVP was arguably the WORST MVP choice of all time). I don't see what is so HOF like about Andre Dawson, and that's even with my supposed easy standard.

One thing that I really don't like is when people try to invalidate the HOF voting process by bringing up Andre Dawson and Jim Rice. To me, at least, the BBWAA's rejection of those two players is a large step in the right direction.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Is he a hall of famer?
I say yes.

[The Kid]

Four reasons the Hawk should be in the hall:

1. 2774 hits

2. 438 homers

3. 318 stolen bases

4. 1591 RBIs

Dawson was a five tool player. Do you think he should be in the hall?

[Wee Willie]

I think he falls a little short. The hits, HR's, and RBI's - in and of themselves, do not meet any standard for getting in. Out of those four stats, the most impressive is the combination of HR's and SB's - which makes him a member of the exclusive 300-300 club. However, I don't believe that alone is enough, either if he didn't do well enough in some other areas that I feel are important in creating a Hall-worthy resume.

Offensively, Dawson exhibited power, but a .279 lifetime BA (and more importantly, a DREADFUL .323 lifetime OBP) suggest to me that he wasn't exactly a 5-tool player. To be 5-tool in my eyes, you've got to hit for a higher average and have a much higher OBP by exercising plate discipline. Dawson didn't have it. Sure, he drove in a fairly high total of runs, but he didn't make himself available enough for others to drive HIM in - and that is equally important to me as RBI's. His OPS+ is only 119, which is quite a bit lower than I would expect a HOF corner outfielder to have.

If you consider Baseball Reference's standards for HOF worthiness, Dawson also comes up short. He ranks 204th all-time in Black Ink, 164th in grey ink (despite playing 21 seasons), and has only a 43.7 HOF standards score (the average HOF'er has a 50).

His stolen bases redeem his hitting numbers, but only slightly IMO. I wouldn't complain if he got in, but my bar is set just a little higher than he can reach.

[538280]

I say NO to Andre Dawson. Dawson was primarily a corner OF for his career, and it's hard for me to see how his offense meets standards for that. His OPS+ is 119, and he is actually overrated by OPS+ because he is a dreadful OBP guy, it's all coming from the SLG. Dawson was overrated in his time, and perhaps I am somewhat biased agianst him because of that, but it's hard for me to see how the picture really stacks up to a HOFer for this guy. His time with the Cubs he was not much better than average, despite his dreadful selection as 1987 MVP.

I think the best case for Andre Dawson is that he spent some time as a CF early in his career with Montreal, and was a pretty good (though not great) one at that. If he was a CF his whole career I might support him. But with the artificial surface in Montreal, Dawson ruined his knees and his speed was gone, he was no longer anything special as an outfielder the rest of his career. And as a not so great defensvie corner OF, his numbers don't stack up at all.

His peak seasons also are very weak. He never got to 30 WS in his career, meaning according to WS he never had an MVP type season. Dave Parker was a similar hitter to Dawson over his career, but I tend to support him because he was a truly great and dominant player at his peak. Parker had seasons of 37, 33, and 31 WS. Dawson didn't even have one at 30.

[RuthMayBond]

I say NO to Andre Dawson. Dawson was primarily a corner OF for his careerPrimarily yes but his games in RF and CF are 1284 and 1027 so it wasn't that lopsided

<His OPS+ is 119>

Which is better than McCarthy, Brock, Sam Rice, Hooper, only 4 below Slaughter, 2 below Manush, and 4 below Raines (most of whom had fewer PA and didn't play that much CF). Just saying there's more than one way to slice it

[538280]

Which is better than McCarthy, Brock, Sam Rice, Hooper, only 4 below Slaughter, 2 below Manush, and 4 below Raines (most of whom had fewer PA and didn't play that much CF). Just saying there's more than one way to slice it

All of the above shouldn't be in the HOF IMO, except Raines when he gets in, but Raines is a totally different kind of offensive player, and one who is totally underrated by OPS+, OPS+ is not fair to evaluate his offense at all. It is very fair to Dawson's offense, in fact even more favorable than it needs to be with him.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I am not a Baines HOF supporter, but he actually played over 1000 games in the outfield and was mentioned as a plus defender at one point. He averaged over 10 outfield assists for 6 years and had 15 in his last season while fielding above the league average. Funny because that was his last year as a regular in the outfield.

Edgar COULD have played the field if he had to.

Baines was so ruined by injuries that his career would have ended in the early 1990s, max, if there were no DH. He simply could not play the field anymore.

[Mattingly]

espn.com has a story on the Hawk:

http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2006/1227/mlb_g_dawson_412.jpg

Debate: Is Andre Dawson a Hall of Famer? (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof08/news/story?id=3173605)
Andre Dawson fell short of reaching the 3,000-hit plateau, but he did hit more than 400 home runs and drove in over 1,500 runs.

In this, his sixth year on the ballot, will Dawson get enough votes to become part of the Class of 2008?

ESPN.com senior deputy editor Michael Knisley and ESPN.com correspondent John Shea discuss Dawson's Hall of Fame candidacy.

FROM: Michael Knisley
TO: John Shea

So I sent in my Hall of Fame ballot on Christmas Eve and it didn't include a vote for Andre Dawson. And guess what? When I got up Christmas morning and checked my reflection in the bathroom mirror, I didn't see Scrooge McDuck looking back at me. In fact, the mirror didn't even crack. I suppose you're going to tell me I'm the Grinch who stole the Hawk's holiday, but I have my reasons and I'm happy to share them. (I'll share them, that is, as long you don't make any wisecracks about my references to Dr. Seuss and a cartoon character in the first paragraph of a serious baseball debate.)

FROM: John Shea
TO: Michael Knisley

You sent in your ballot on Christmas Eve? With a week to go before the deadline? Quite decisive, you. Me? I'll fax it in New Year's Eve just in case George Mitchell announces he has another page of names he forgot to include in his report. Anyway, yeah, Andre Dawson. All-around player, excelling in many areas when healthy, and Cooperstown is the place that honors such five-toolmanship. Will he succeed? I could quote your Seuss and say, "Yes indeed, yes indeed! Ninety-eight and three-quarters percent, guaranteed." But I doubt he'll come close to the required 75 percent after getting 56.7 last year. I still say he's deserving.

* * *

[Captain Cold Nose]

ESPN just did Goose Gossage in a similar vein. I doubt they're going to elect three players this year, and I highly doubt Dawson is going to leapfrog Jim Rice.

[J W]

Those e-mails were pretty entertaining -- even if they were staged. I like the Tim Raines one:

Stark: "I'm voting for Tim Raines!"

Gammons: "I dunno..."

Stark: "Aw, c'mon Peter, you know you wanna!"

Gammons: "Mmmm... well... ok"

Stark: "Really? Wow, that was easy. I didn't even have to break out the heavy analysis! OK, happy New Year Pete!"

:laugh

[J W]

I'm firmly in John Shea's corner, btw... Dawson excelled at too many things to let the ONE drawback -- OBP -- keep him off my ballot. He amassed a lot of GG seasons at CF and I give him a lot of credit for that, even though I remember him as a Cub.

As far as injuries go, he played in 130+ games 14 out of his 16 full seasons in Montreal and Chicago. The other two years were 1981 (strike-shortened) and 1989. Like Shea says, he played hurt and people respected him for it.

But Dawson has joined a list of players who have/will have that one issue to deal with, and we'll just have to wait and see. I don't see us at BBF budging from our respective positions much.

[Rube Waddell]

As I have previously stated in another thread, Andre Dawson do not deserve to be enrished in the HOF. I saw him play 10 years in Montreal. When the Expos won 13-2, he used to be 4 for 5 with 2 homers and 5 rbi's. When the team desesparatly needed a hit in a close game...he struck out 9 times out of ten.

In the 1981 playoff, had Dawson showed up (he hit a miserable .150) the Expos would have beat the Dodgers and faced the Yankees in the WS. Some say that he was jalous of Gary Carter, talk about a team player...Incidentally, Carter batted .438 in the same serie.

Dawson was at his best when the pressure was non-existant. For example, he won his MVP with a last place team (Cubs, 1897). Dawson was highly productive when his team was 35 games behind on August 1st.

In my humble opinion, Dawson had great skills, but he remains one of the worst clutch hitter in baseball history.

[1905 Giants]

I think a key problem is the question.
Dawson does not NEED to be in the Hall of Fame for the Hall to survive.
Could he be in there? Yes
Should he be in there? I'll leave that to people with more baseball savvy to decide.

[cardsfanatic]

If I got a vote for the HOF there's no way I'd cast it for Dawson.

[BoofBonser26]

As I have previously stated in another thread, Andre Dawson do not deserve to be enrished in the HOF. I saw him play 10 years in Montreal. When the Expos won 13-2, he used to be 4 for 5 with 2 homers and 5 rbi's. When the team desesparatly needed a hit in a close game...he struck out 9 times out of ten.

In the 1981 playoff, had Dawson showed up (he hit a miserable .150) the Expos would have beat the Dodgers and faced the Yankees in the WS. Some say that he was jalous of Gary Carter, talk about a team player...Incidentally, Carter batted .438 in the same serie.

Dawson was at his best when the pressure was non-existant. For example, he won his MVP with a last place team (Cubs, 1897). Dawson was highly productive when his team was 35 games behind on August 1st.

In my humble opinion, Dawson had great skills, but he remains one of the worst clutch hitter in baseball history.
Hey, so A-Rod wasn't the first! :dance:hp:dance

[Los Bravos]

I'm firmly in John Shea's corner, btw... Dawson excelled at too many things to let the ONE drawback -- OBP -- keep him off my ballot.I honestly find it difficult to believe that anyone can maintain that position (that his OBP is a candidacy-sinker) with a straight face. It's like those exercises from moot court or debating societies, defending absurd, hopeless propositions just to keep your mind and verbal skills sharp.ESPN just did Goose Gossage in a similar vein. I doubt they're going to elect three players this year, and I highly doubt Dawson is going to leapfrog Jim Rice.I agree, although Goose or Jim (or both, even better) making it in would auger well for his chances. Just not his immediate chances.

Reading back through this thread I think again, not for the first time, that anyone invoking the term "Hall Of The Very Good"...:rant:

[jalbright]

I'm firmly in John Shea's corner, btw... Dawson excelled at too many things to let the ONE drawback -- OBP -- keep him off my ballot.
I honestly find it difficult to believe that anyone can maintain that position (that his OBP is a candidacy-sinker) with a straight face. It's like those exercises from moot court or debating societies, defending absurd, hopeless propositions just to keep your mind and verbal skills sharp.

While in Dawson's case, I agree with your conclusion, a low OBP is a huge negative for two very important reasons--it means that Dawson made outs at a rate above average and that he didn't give himself as many chances to score runs. A low OBP is thus a two-pronged negative, while something like a lack of power is a single-pronged negative. While in Dawson's specific case, I think his positives help him slip over the barrier, I don't think it is an "absurd, hopeless proposition" that his OBP is enough to sink his case. Frankly, Dawson is one of those candidates I'd prefer to see elected, but would not complain much if he didn't ever get inducted.

[brett]

While in Dawson's case, I agree with your conclusion, a low OBP is a huge negative for two very important reasons--it means that Dawson made outs at a rate above average and that he didn't give himself as many chances to score runs. A low OBP is thus a two-pronged negative, while something like a lack of power is a single-pronged negative. While in Dawson's specific case, I think his positives help him slip over the barrier, I don't think it is an "absurd, hopeless proposition" that his OBP is enough to sink his case. Frankly, Dawson is one of those candidates I'd prefer to see elected, but would not complain much if he didn't ever get inducted.

I'm not big on getting Dawson in, but he had more total bases per out than Reggie Jackson (.669 to .664) and about the same number of total bases. He had far more total bases per out than Robin Yount.

I don't think he should be in largely because he was not primarily a great centerfielder, he was primarily an average, at best, left fielder and DH.

[Cougar]

I'm not big on getting Dawson in, but he had more total bases per out than Reggie Jackson (.669 to .664) and about the same number of total bases. He had far more total bases per out than Robin Yount.

I don't think he should be in largely because he was not primarily a great centerfielder, he was primarily an average, at best, left fielder and DH.

The first statement is interesting and astute, although TB doesn't include walks, where Reggie did much better than Hawk.

The second statement is demonstrably wrong.

Dawson's career games played by position:

1284 in RF
1027 in CF
171 at DH (all with Boston at ages 38 & 39)
39 in LF (all the first or last two seasons of his career)

For all practical purposes, Dawson was a CF for the first half of his career, winning 4 Gold Gloves, and a RF for the second half, winning 4 more. While it's possible he was a little overrated defensively, you don't win eight GG by mistake. Hawk was a very good fielder.

[brett]

The first statement is interesting and astute, although TB doesn't include walks, where Reggie did much better than Hawk.

The second statement is demonstrably wrong.

Dawson's career games played by position:

1284 in RF
1027 in CF
171 at DH (all with Boston at ages 38 & 39)
39 in LF (all the first or last two seasons of his career)

For all practical purposes, Dawson was a CF for the first half of his career, winning 4 Gold Gloves, and a RF for the second half, winning 4 more. While it's possible he was a little overrated defensively, you don't win eight GG by mistake. Hawk was a very good fielder.


Baseball prospectus, at least, has him at 2 fielding runs below average in right and 29 fielding runs below average in left during his times there while being 6 runs above average in center. That's a total of 25 runs below average in the outfielder.

Using the same system, Dwight Evans was +69 though Dave Winfield was a whopping 61 below average.

[J W]

That doesn't compute right. Dawson played 2350 games in the OF -- 1284 in RF, 1027 in CF, 39 in LF:

(runs above average)(games played at position)/(total games played)

RF + CF + LF

(-2)(1284)/2350 + (6)(1027)/2350 + (-29)(39)/(2350)

= (-1.09) + (2.62) + (-0.48)

= ~ 1 run better than average per game played in the OF over his career. And that is not weighted towards his time in CF which is typically the most demanding position out there.

[Los Bravos]

While in Dawson's specific case, I think his positives help him slip over the barrier, I don't think it is an "absurd, hopeless proposition" that his OBP is enough to sink his case.Stacked against all of his positives, I think it is.

[Rube Waddell]

Fuzzy Bear wrote:

He was the best player on the Expo teams that were contenders, and without Dawson, the Expos would never have contended.

I really, really don't agree. As I said, Dawson was a poor, undisciplined batter when games were on the lines. Times and times again, he left men on bases when it counted the most (see his stats for the 1981 NLCS). Those who followed the Expos's activities in the late 70's and 80's knows that there we "cliques" in the clubhouse and that Dawson was a ringleader of dissention.

Gary Carter and Tim Raines were far more valuable than Dawson. Hey, I'm not saying Dawson wasn't a very good player, I'm saying that Dawson let down teammates and fans when they looked up to him. I may be mistaken, but it sure looks like that, for Andre Dawson, Andre Dawson was far more important to him than his teams.

[jalbright]

While in Dawson's specific case, I think his positives help him slip over the barrier, I don't think it is an "absurd, hopeless proposition" that his OBP is enough to sink his case.
Stacked against all of his positives, I think it is.

Then it's safe to say we disagree, as I think Dawson makes it in a close call. The very fact I see it as a close call means it's debatable whether he belongs, which is far more than a "absurd, hopeless proposition".

[brett]

That doesn't compute right. Dawson played 2350 games in the OF -- 1284 in RF, 1027 in CF, 39 in LF:

(runs above average)(games played at position)/(total games played)

RF + CF + LF

(-2)(1284)/2350 + (6)(1027)/2350 + (-29)(39)/(2350)

= (-1.09) + (2.62) + (-0.48)

= ~ 1 run better than average per game played in the OF over his career. And that is not weighted towards his time in CF which is typically the most demanding position out there.


No I wasn't giving runs above average per game, just total runs above average for all his games at each position.

[psbaseballfan27]

It is no doubt Andre Dawson is on the borderline. His obp is terrible; there is no doubt about that. Even though he's not the greatest fielder winning 8 gg can't be dismissed. Also finishing three times in the top two of mvp is another impressive accomplishment. So imo its close but I would vote him in. However i don't the writers will.

[Captain Cold Nose]

It is no doubt Andre Dawson is on the borderline. His obp is terrible; there is no doubt about that. Even though he's not the greatest fielder winning 8 gg can't be dismissed. Also finishing three times in the top two of mvp is another impressive accomplishment. So imo its close but I would vote him in. However i don't the writers will.

He's doing very well for not being on the ballot that long. Not many who've topped 60% as early as he has have not been voted in, if any.

[brett]

I actually think that Dawson will surge with the steroid scandal. When he retired, only Kingman and Darrell Evans had 400 home runs and were not in, and both were under the .250 batting average that some voters have said shuts them down completely on a player. They do NOT want to "taint" the hall with a sub .250 average.

I would not be unhappy with Dawson going in. A 119 OPS+ for a guy who played more corner outfield than CF is pretty low compared to other guys, though he was probably about 123 before those two poor years.

I think Dwight Evans had a better career and Dale Murphy had a better peak of 6 years.

But I hope the voters can separate Dawson from Rice. Rice stands as perhaps the one astute non-selection by the voters. One time that they could look past the raw stats. If Rice goes in, then the voters prove they have no deeper insight into the game.

Now I don't hate Rice. I can even look at his rare raw stats (for the time) as a big plus-he did what hitters were "supposed" to do in that time, but he just didn't last long enough at that. If his career had been 20% longer, its another story.

[Los Bravos]

He's doing very well for not being on the ballot that long. Not many who've topped 60% as early as he has have not been voted in, if any.I think there is a perception that's developed over the last 15-20 years that if you don't go in on your first or second year, that it's a terrible disgrace and/or snub and you're never getting in.

Before that, there were any number of cases where a guy whould start out with a decent percentage of the vote and build steadily for a few years, eventually getting in on his fifth or sixth try. It was a de facto way of the voters communicating that while he made it, there were some reservations about him. This seems to be happening with Rice and Gossage and I think it will, eventually, for Dawson.

[brett]

I think there is a perception that's developed over the last 15-20 years that if you don't go in on your first or second year, that it's a terrible disgrace and/or snub and you're never getting in.

Before that, there were any number of cases where a guy whould start out with a decent percentage of the vote and build steadily for a few years, eventually getting in on his fifth or sixth try. It was a de facto way of the voters communicating that while he made it, there were some reservations about him. This seems to be happening with Rice and Gossage and I think it will, eventually, for Dawson.

Duke Snider was on the ballott for 10 years!

Still, a problem I have is the guys who go off in 1 year. I think that Will Clark was better than Jim Rice, and I'm not a Clark fan or a Rice detractor particularly. I think Dick Allen was much better than Rice.

By the way, if a guy were to get 5% in write in, could he go back on the ballot?

[Los Bravos]

Duke was in my mind as an example, but I forgot it was that long. Yikes.

And yes, Will should have gotten more support than that.

[Freakshow]

By the way, if a guy were to get 5% in write in, could he go back on the ballot?
No. Write-in votes are not part of the official count.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I think there is a perception that's developed over the last 15-20 years that if you don't go in on your first or second year, that it's a terrible disgrace and/or snub and you're never getting in.

Before that, there were any number of cases where a guy whould start out with a decent percentage of the vote and build steadily for a few years, eventually getting in on his fifth or sixth try. It was a de facto way of the voters communicating that while he made it, there were some reservations about him. This seems to be happening with Rice and Gossage and I think it will, eventually, for Dawson.

It took Bruce Sutter 13 years on the ballot. Without looking it up, I think he was the first to go in after reaching double-digit tenure on the ballot since Don Drysdale (1984). Somehow, Gary Carter lasted eight years on the ballot, as did Tony Perez. Not too many in your time frame. That does go well in-line with your assertion. Thankfully, Goose Gossage won't spend that much time on the ballot.

brett hit upon it. Playersof the 80's, in general, have not fared too greatly on the ballot. They either get in right away (or take three years, like Sandberg) or they fall through the cracks. The steroid implications of the current era can only help those players whose numbers have been drawfed in recent years. It's too late for some, but with the recent VC floods they'll get their due. Through overcompensation. :shrug:

[Los Bravos]

The steroid implications of the current era can only help those players whose numbers have been drawfed in recent years.As I've mentioned before, I sincerely hope that's the case. It's the next logical step once anyone faces the implications of this most recent era.

[four tool]

I thought the steroid issue would get Rice in last year (not that I think he should be in) so we'll see.

[OleMissCub]

If I got a vote for the HOF there's no way I'd cast it for Dawson.

Huge shock Cardinal Fan.

[OleMissCub]

I think that Will Clark was better than Jim Rice, and I'm not a Clark fan or a Rice detractor particularly.


Yeah, Will the Thrill was a Bad-A. I'd take Albert Belle over Rice too.

My main argument in favor of Dawson (especially if you are comparing him to Rice) are the numerous tools that he possessed. He could run the bases, hit for power, hit for a good average (sometimes), and field his position.

Rice wouldn't even be in the consideration if he hadn't played at Fenway. Check out his ABYSMAL Home/Road splits

Home: .320/.374/.546, .920 OPS
Away: .277/.330/.459, .789 OPS

Dawson's splits are pretty much consistent:

Home: .281/.330/.481, .811 OPS
Away: .278/.316/.483, .799 OPS

[brett]

Yeah, Will the Thrill was a Bad-A. I'd take Albert Belle over Rice too.

My main argument in favor of Dawson (especially if you are comparing him to Rice) are the numerous tools that he possessed. He could run the bases, hit for power, hit for a good average (sometimes), and field his position.

Rice wouldn't even be in the consideration if he hadn't played at Fenway. Check out his ABYSMAL Home/Road splits

Home: .320/.374/.546, .920 OPS
Away: .277/.330/.459, .789 OPS

Dawson's splits are pretty much consistent:

Home: .281/.330/.481, .811 OPS
Away: .278/.316/.483, .799 OPS

Dawson was a very good baserunner early on, and a lot of people focus on steals, but we know by looking at players today that a top baserunner can be worth 5 runs or 6-7 points of OPS+ worth in taking extra bases that never show up in any stats. If Dawson put up say 2.5 extra runs on the bases per year-pretty good for a guy with a long decline, he might be worth about a 122 OPS+, as well as some for his steals, and he played longer than Rice. I think Dawson was overrated on defense outside of a few early seasons: '77-'83. By '84 he was definitely hurting. The ability to play 1000 games in center is important though.

I do think Rice was probably an average baserunner. You don't get 15 triples in a season if you are slow. I think he was an average corner outfielder. I also think a lot of his GIDP can be explained by the fact that Boston NEVER had fast guys in the 1-2 spots. He is not totally responsible for the GIDP. As for Rice's splits, keep in mind that the league was about .330/.398 on base and slugging outside of Fenway. That would make his road OPS+ about 119, and his home OPS+ about 137. I think I have seen estimates that an average player will be about 4 points better at home than on the road, so its more like 121 to 135, and if his style was made to fit Fenway, some of that discrepancy is still explainable.

People point out the big counting stats, but consider folks that he only averaged on home run every 21.5 at bats and 1 RBI every 5.67 for a basically medium length career for a "star".

Hank Aaron and Willie Mays averaged one home run every 16.4 at bats an played 1000 more games.

Rice was made out to be basically similar to Aaron or Mays at the plate, without the defense, and baserunning, and playing only 65% as long. Mays had 11 years with a better OPS+ than Rice had in '78 (15) and Aaron had 10 years better than that.

[OleMissCub]

Rice was made out to be basically similar to Aaron or Mays at the plate, without the defense, and baserunning, and playing only 65% as long. Mays had 11 years with a better OPS+ than Rice had in '78 (15) and Aaron had 10 years better than that.

Aaron's stats are just staggering when you look at them.

Consider his total bases record: 6856. The next man down on the all time total bases list (Musial) would have to have hit 180 more home runs to catch up to Aaron's record.

[cardsfanatic]

Huge shock Cardinal Fan.

Nevermind the fact I'd consider Dawson an Expo...

Yes, it's a huge shock that there's always someone out there to call you biased because your opinion differs from his. For the record, there are many former Cub players that deserve the Hall. Ryne Sandberg. Greg Maddux. Possibly even Ron Santo. Andre Dawson was very good but it's not the Hall of Very Good, podge. It's the Hall of Fame. Dawson was never "great" for any long stretch and I don't even think he deserved his lone MVP. Will Clark, Darryl Strawberry, Eric Davis, Dale Murphy, Jack Clark, Tim Raines, Tony Gwynn etc... all were better that year in the NL than Dawson. But I'm sure that's also because I'm biased :rolleyes:

[STLCards2]

Nevermind the fact I'd consider Dawson an Expo...

Yes, it's a huge shock that there's always an idiot out there to call you biased because your opinion differs from his. For the record, there are many former Cub players that deserve the Hall. Ryne Sandberg. Greg Maddux. Possibly even Ron Santo. Andre Dawson was very good but it's not the Hall of Very Good, podge. It's the Hall of Fame. Dawson was never "great" for any long stretch and I don't even think he deserved his lone MVP. Will Clark, Darryl Strawberry, Eric Davis, Dale Murphy, Jack Clark, Tim Raines, Tony Gwynn etc... all were better that year in the NL than Dawson. But I'm sure that's also because I'm biased :rolleyes:

If you were biased, you would have also mentioned Ozzie Smith who was also better than Dawson that year.

[Fuzzy Bear]

If you were biased, you would have also mentioned Ozzie Smith who was also better than Dawson that year.

Ozzie should have been the MVP in 1987; that's very true.

Dawson hit a LOT of jacks in 1987, and the total of 49 he hit was a far bigger deal then than it is now. More than one player has stolen an MVP award with an impressive HR total, even when the rest of the stats aren't what they ought to be, or appear to be.

If Dawson were in center field, and at his peak, defensively, in 1987, his selection might not have been so erroneous.

[OleMissCub]

Nevermind the fact I'd consider Dawson an Expo...

Yes, it's a huge shock that there's always someone out there to call you biased because your opinion differs from his. For the record, there are many former Cub players that deserve the Hall. Ryne Sandberg. Greg Maddux. Possibly even Ron Santo. Andre Dawson was very good but it's not the Hall of Very Good, podge. It's the Hall of Fame. Dawson was never "great" for any long stretch and I don't even think he deserved his lone MVP. Will Clark, Darryl Strawberry, Eric Davis, Dale Murphy, Jack Clark, Tim Raines, Tony Gwynn etc... all were better that year in the NL than Dawson. But I'm sure that's also because I'm biased :rolleyes:

It was a "friendly rival" joke fella, chill out.

[mtortolero]

...I do think Rice was probably an average baserunner. You don't get 15 triples in a season if you are slow. I think he was an average corner outfielder. I also think a lot of his GIDP can be explained by the fact that Boston NEVER had fast guys in the 1-2 spots. He is not totally responsible for the GIDP...
Look as he became in a slow runner after his 30 years old birthday. In 1984 and 1985 his speed stats (2XB, 3X B, singles by infield hits and SB) dropped in significative way regarding those same stats in his prime years (1977 and 1978) and that fact is not related with the rest of the lineup.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

Dawson made a pretty big jump in the voting this year. I'd probably vote for him if I had the chance, but, until now, I never had a strong leaning as to what I thought his actual fate would be. Now he looks to be a future Hall of Famer. 65.9% in his seventh year on the ballot has me feeling pretty confident in his eventual election. Your thoughts?

[psbaseballfan27]

I believe Dawson will get in. Next year the only shoe in is Rickey Henderson.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Dawson made a pretty big jump in the voting this year. I'd probably vote for him if I had the chance, but, until now, I never had a strong leaning as to what I thought his actual fate would be. Now he looks to be a future Hall of Famer. 65.9% in his seventh year on the ballot has me feeling pretty confident in his eventual election. Your thoughts?

In another thread, I mentioned that Dawson now has received a higher vote of anyone (other than Rice) who is outside the HOF. Dawson also has 8 more shots at the prize; 4 more than Blyleven, and 7 more than Rice.

Dawson's chances are pretty good now of eventually getting in. One thing I have noticed in HOF voting is that there is a tendency for players to build support over time; I can't think of any player who ever got to Dawson's level of support, then fell back severely. It looks like two tendencies hold sway for writers:

(A) Once a writer votes for a candidate, they will continue to support that candidate.

(B) The writers appear to be conscious of how much time a player has remaining on the ballot, and are more likely to vote for a player they had not voted for in the past who is coming near the end of his run on the ballot and appears to be generating something of a bandwagon effect.

Rice definitely has a bandwagon going for him; it's his biggest asset. Dawson doesn't have the same kind of bandwagon going for him, but he has a following, and he may build on it. There is an element of "campaigning" for election to the HOF; you just can't be too obvious about it.

[Los Bravos]

Dawson doesn't have the same kind of bandwagon going for him, but he has a following, and he may build on it.I think Sandberg put it on the agenda for real in his induction speech.

[Cowtipper]

So, who thinks Dawson will get in in 2009?

[Fuzzy Bear]

So, who thinks Dawson will get in in 2009?

Here's Dawson's track record with the voters:



Andre DawsonYear Votes PCT
2002 214 45.3%
2003 248 50%
2004 253 50%
2005 270 52.3%
2006 317 61%
2007 309 56.7%
2008 358 65.9%


I can't think of a guy who was this close after 7 years that didn't eventually make it all the way.


Gil HodgesYear Votes PCT
1969 82 24.1%
1970 145 48.3%
1971 180 50%
1972 161 40.7%
1973 218 57.4%
1974 198 54.2%
1975 188 51.9%
1976 233 60.1%
1977 224 58.5%
1978 226 59.6%
1979 242 56%
1980 230 59.7%
1981 241 60.1%
1982 205 49.4%
1983 237 63.4%


Gil Hodges is, I believe, the player who did the best in BBWAA voting without eventually making the HOF.


Jim RiceYear Votes PCT
1995 137 29.8%
1996 166 35.3%
1997 178 37.6%
1998 203 42.9%
1999 146 29.4%
2000 257 51.5%
2001 298 57.9%
2002 260 55.1%
2003 259 52.2%
2004 276 54.5%
2005 307 59.5%
2006 337 64.8%
2007 346 63.5%
2008 392 72.2%


Jim Rice has done better than Hodges; he's got one more shot, so I think he's going in this year.

If you look at history, Dawson can be reasonably optimistic that he will, someday, be enshrined by the writers.

[Mike90]

He wouldn't be a bad selection. His counting stats (438 HRs, 503 doubles, 1591 RBIs, 1373 Runs, 2774 hits) are impressive as well as his two 2nd-place finishes in the MVP voting (I don't consider his 1987 MVP because that was a bad joke). He was considered brilliant defensively before his knees fell apart, and he got credit throughout his career for his leadership, whatever that's worth.

[four tool]

Here's Dawson's track record with the voters:



Andre DawsonYear Votes PCT
2002 214 45.3%
2003 248 50%
2004 253 50%
2005 270 52.3%
2006 317 61%
2007 309 56.7%
2008 358 65.9%


I can't think of a guy who was this close after 7 years that didn't eventually make it all the way.


Gil HodgesYear Votes PCT
1969 82 24.1%
1970 145 48.3%
1971 180 50%
1972 161 40.7%
1973 218 57.4%
1974 198 54.2%
1975 188 51.9%
1976 233 60.1%
1977 224 58.5%
1978 226 59.6%
1979 242 56%
1980 230 59.7%
1981 241 60.1%
1982 205 49.4%
1983 237 63.4%


Gil Hodges is, I believe, the player who did the best in BBWAA voting without eventually making the HOF.


Jim RiceYear Votes PCT
1995 137 29.8%
1996 166 35.3%
1997 178 37.6%
1998 203 42.9%
1999 146 29.4%
2000 257 51.5%
2001 298 57.9%
2002 260 55.1%
2003 259 52.2%
2004 276 54.5%
2005 307 59.5%
2006 337 64.8%
2007 346 63.5%
2008 392 72.2%


Jim Rice has done better than Hodges; he's got one more shot, so I think he's going in this year.

If you look at history, Dawson can be reasonably optimistic that he will, someday, be enshrined by the writers.

Yea, As long as he doesn't look at Rice

[Brad Harris]

You can bank on Rice getting elected with Henderson this winter. That opens up 2010 for Dawson. Raines is the only other outfielder on the ballot likely to "steal" votes from Andre and the best freshmen of '10 (Larkin, Alomar, McGriff) aren't exactly shoo-ins from the BBWAA's perspective. I believe Rice's election will have an effect on Dawson's vote totals similar to what Sutter's election did for Gossage.

[Fuzzy Bear]

He wouldn't be a bad selection. His counting stats (438 HRs, 503 doubles, 1591 RBIs, 1373 Runs, 2774 hits) are impressive as well as his two 2nd-place finishes in the MVP voting (I don't consider his 1987 MVP because that was a bad joke). He was considered brilliant defensively before his knees fell apart, and he got credit throughout his career for his leadership, whatever that's worth.

If Dawson had been able to spend his entire career in CF, instead of going to RF due to bad knees, his career would be MUCH more impressive, and I would feel much more positively toward his candidacy than I currently do.

[Mike90]

I hope Rice doesn't get in ahead of Dawson. Rice's entire argument is based on some pretty good hitting stats that were inflated by playing his entire career at Fenway plus the "fear" that he inspired in pitchers.

Dawson was very good at pretty much every aspect of the game except for drawing walks, and he had a significantly longer career than Rice. Dawson is borderline to me because of his abysmal .323 OBP, which made him an out machine. The question is whether his many positives outweigh his lack of walks. I think so, but it's really not a shame that he's not in the Hall.

I'm kind of surprised that Barry Larkin is not considered a shoo-in. He's a 12-time all-star and an MVP-winner, so the writers and fans must have appreciated what Larkin brought to the game.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I hope Rice doesn't get in ahead of Dawson. Rice's entire argument is based on some pretty good hitting stats that were inflated by playing his entire career at Fenway plus the "fear" that he inspired in pitchers.

Next year is Rice's last shot on the BBWAA ballot. If history is a guide, you're not going to get your wish. Rice will crack the 75% mark on the last try.

I'm not cheering about this; only predicting the outcome of next year's voting.

[Cougar]

If one is a Dawson or Murphy supporter, however, Rice's near inevitable induction next year (which I don't have a particular problem with anyway) will help their causes quite a bit...especially Dawson. (I've stated before that Dale Murphy's lack of support bewilders me.)

[Mike90]

I don't understand Murphy's lack of support either. His counting stats aren't too impressive (398 HRs, 1266 RBIs, 1197 Runs) because he only played 2180 games, but he won two MVPs and finished in the top ten in MVP voting four seasons in a row, not including a season where he .295 with 44 HRs and finished 11th for some reason.

Murphy was consistently one of the best players in the league from 1980 to 1987, and the Hall should recognize that sustained level of greatness.

[STLCards2]

Anybody pushing for Murphy for HOF election should look long and hard in regards to Edmonds:

Murphy - 2180 G
121 OPS+

Edmonds - 1950 G
132 OPS+

Both were very good (if not slightly overrated) fielders. Murphy won 2 MVP awards (with a pretty weak field), but Edmonds had several MVP caliber seasons (2000, 2004) with a loaded field. Murphy may have been slightly better at his best, but Edmonds was more consistant and had fewer poor/mediocre years in his prime.

I am not saying I would or would not select either of the two, but if one is in, I;d say both need to be.

[Cougar]

Anybody pushing for Murphy for HOF election should look long and hard in regards to Edmonds:

Murphy - 2180 G
121 OPS+

Edmonds - 1950 G
132 OPS+

Both were very good (if not slightly overrated) fielders. Murphy won 2 MVP awards (with a pretty weak field), but Edmonds had several MVP caliber seasons (2000, 2004) with a loaded field. Murphy may have been slightly better at his best, but Edmonds was more consistant and had fewer poor/mediocre years in his prime.

I am not saying I would or would not select either of the two, but if one is in, I;d say both need to be.

I don't especially disagree...Murphy had a higher peak, Edmonds had a longer one. Murphy's counting numbers are better, but of course he accrued them hanging around as a below average corner outfielder.

The biggest strike against Edmonds, and the reason I'd rank him behind Murphy decisively, is his lack of black ink/gray ink. He never led the league in anything, nor came especially close. It's not unreasonable to posit that Edmonds' numbers are inflated to some degree because his peak seasons fell in the Superball era of the late '90's/early '00's.

That said, I'd support Edmonds, although I'd feel better about it if he got to 2000 hits and 400 HR...if he doesn't, supporters are forced to explain why someone deserves support despite not hitting those marks.

[four tool]

to me, Dawson is the best candidate of the three, and I'm not completely sold on Dawson--but then I have HIGH standards and really consider it the Hall of FAME, not the hall of the very good.

[STLCards2]

to me, Dawson is the best candidate of the three, and I'm not completely sold on Dawson--but then I have HIGH standards and really consider it the Hall of FAME, not the hall of the very good.


Shouldn't you call it the Hall of "GREAT" then? A true Hall of Fame would include Roger Maris, Doc Gooden, Darryl Strawberry, Don Mattingly, Billy Martin, etc. and leave out Stan Covelseki, Arky Vaughan, Frank Baker, and Johnny Mize. If we want to take the terms literaly, than we should be fighting for a name change at Cooperstown. Its has never been a true Hall of Fame.

Sidenote: Wow, look at the list of famous New Yorkers that didn't make the HOF (this was not intentional). Throw in Guidry, Munson, Rice, Gordon-maybe the idea of east coast bias an HOF voting is wrong?:shhh: I would think that if there were so much bias, that many of these guys would have been enshrined.

[STLCards2]

It's not unreasonable to posit that Edmonds' numbers are inflated to some degree because his peak seasons fell in the Superball era of the late '90's/early '00's.

.

Not much - OPS+ already factors in the era in which he played - so Edmonds was 32% better than the steroid using superjocks, wheras Murphy was 21% better than the light-hitting sissyboys.

[Brad Harris]

Sidenote: Wow, look at the list of famous New Yorkers that didn't make the HOF (this was not intentional). Throw in Guidry, Munson, Rice, Gordon-maybe the idea of east coast bias an HOF voting is wrong?:shhh: I would think that if there were so much bias, that many of these guys would have been enshrined.

Why? I think it's reasonable to say that east-coast bias is a large part of how those players got as many votes as they did! They don't have to have been elected to prove a bias. Phil Rizzuto (now in) and Gil Hodges (still out) are candidates with some of the most vocal supporters for their election by the Veterans Committee. How often does a Rusty Staub or a Bill Freehan bandwagon get the kind of publicity and attention that dozens of NY-centric candidates do?

Can you imagine how many more votes a Jack Morris would receive had he had the exact same career, but in pinstripes?

[STLCards2]

Why? I think it's reasonable to say that east-coast bias is a large part of how those players got as many votes as they did! They don't have to have been elected to prove a bias. Phil Rizzuto (now in) and Gil Hodges (still out) are candidates with some of the most vocal supporters for their election by the Veterans Committee. How often does a Rusty Staub or a Bill Freehan bandwagon get the kind of publicity and attention that dozens of NY-centric candidates do?

Can you imagine how many more votes a Jack Morris would receive had he had the exact same career, but in pinstripes?

True, but guys like Munson, Gordon, and Rice are all borderline guys in terms of ability. I am suprised they didn't get more support. Of course the voters are smart enough to not put in Strawberry and Gooden regardless of where they played. If east-coast bias was as great as some think, Gordon, Munson, and Rice would have been in easily, and Gossage wouldn't have waited for so long to get elected. Mattingly and Maris would be in too. These guys were very good, very famous, and very east-coast. The fact that they are not in shows that the voters aren't as biased as we put-upon midwesterners like to make ourselelves feel. I am not saying that the eas-coast bias didn't help some players. It did, especialy early on with Veterans committee voting, but now? Not much.

[Cougar]

Not much - OPS+ already factors in the era in which he played - so Edmonds was 32% better than the steroid using superjocks, wheras Murphy was 21% better than the light-hitting sissyboys.

True...but that includes Murphy's overlong decline, which makes it a little deceiving.

[STLCards2]

True...but that includes Murphy's overlong decline, which makes it a little deceiving.

Murphy played about 2 full seasons more worth of games. Even at Edmond's current production, two more years would not close that gap, but yes, the OPS+ gap is a little decieving.

Also ...are you advocating ignoring a player's decline phase? He did decline, like it or not. Why should he be excused for that? If he had an "overlong" decline, it is probably his "fault" and should be penalized for it.

Edmonds is having a nice little decline too - not as dramatic as Murphy, however.

[Cougar]

Murphy played about 2 full seasons more worth of games. Even at Edmond's current production, two more years would not close that gap, but yes, the OPS+ gap is a little deceiving.

Also ...are you advocating ignoring a player's decline phase? He did decline, like it or not. Why should he be excused for that? If he had an "overlong" decline, it is probably his "fault" and should be penalized for it.

Edmonds is having a nice little decline too - not as dramatic as Murphy, however.

Not ignoring, exactly, but I think it ought to be given a lot less weight. If a player was a HOFer at the end of his peak, the fact that he had a disappointing coda to his career shouldn't change that. It doesn't diminish what he did during his great seasons.

Is Pedro Martinez any less of a HOFer given his last couple seasons with the Mets? Is Johnny Bench less of a HOFer because he spent three mediocre seasons at third base?

At the end of 1987 Murphy was acclaimed to be a first ballot lock. Granted, everyone expected him to keep producing, but instead he just fell apart, rather mysteriously.

(Indeed, that's why he got so many years to try to recover his "mojo"...he'd earned much more benefit of the doubt than other players who went into decline without an obvious cause.)

You're still talking about a guy who was a two-time MVP, a gold glove center fielder, and one of the best half dozen offensive players in the NL for about a 6 year run (with Schmidt, Raines, Gwynn...I'm sure I'm forgetting a couple).

[Mike90]

Among the great 80s stars who haven't been elected yet, I would rank them as:

1) Tim Raines = He's a leadoff hitter with a .385 OBP, 808 steals, and 1571 runs scored. He was in the top 4 in OBP from 1983 to 1987, and he led the NL in stolen bases every year from 1981 to 1984. Am I missing something about this guy? Is it because he played in Canada?

2) Dale Murphy = Great peak, long decline. In the 6-year span from '82 to '87, he averaged 36 HRs, 110 runs and 105 RBIs at a time when 110 RBIs could lead the league.

3) Andre Dawson = He's pretty borderline to me. He played over 2600 games and has impressive counting stats. I don't know whether that's enough to overlook his .323 OBP.

[Freakshow]

Murphy played about 2 full seasons more worth of games. Even at Edmond's current production, two more years would not close that gap, but yes, the OPS+ gap is a little decieving.
Murphy had about as many PA as Edmonds following the 1989 season. His career OPS+ at that point was 126.

[STLCards2]

Murphy had about as many PA as Edmonds following the 1989 season. His career OPS+ at that point was 126.

Yes, this is my point...the gap would be tightened, but not closed. The extra PAs only get him halfway there to Edmonds. This is what I said in my previous post. I am not even claiming that Edmonds is better than Murphy - but they are close enough that one shouldn't have Murphy comfortably in their HOF and Edmonds wasy out.

My main point was that if all players had their decline years "excused" from their records, it would change eveything we felt about ranking. If we excuse decline phases, why not ignore poor seasons at the beginning of pitchers' careers like Greg Maddux? Why not ignore injury ridden seasons in the middle of a career? Then you end up only focusing on arbitrary peak seasons.

Bottom line: if a guy Steve Carltons -it -up for this last 3-4 seasons, he is doing real, tangiable, damage to his teams, not just his statistics. The damage he does to his team's chances during the decline years is real and important. I refuse to ignore that damage. I see Couger's point, however.

[Paul Wendt]

I agree that the BBWAA writers will elect Andre Dawson.

Fuzzy Bear
1983 237 63.4%

Gil Hodges is, I believe, the player who did the best in BBWAA voting without eventually making the HOF.
Maybe he will eventually make the Hall of Fame. History is a weak guide to that at best, because Cooperstown radically reformed the process of electing "veterans" several years ago. A few players elected by the old Veterans Committee came much closer than Hodges to election by the writers. The tables below show the BBWAA election careers of Nellie Fox, Jim Bunning, and Orlando Cepeda who expired in 1985, 1991, and 1995 with maximum 73 or 74%.

Unfortunately this history may be out of date. How many of the 1980 BBWAA voters are still in place? Next year the survivors will be in their 40th years as members, at least. No one today builds support as Fox and Cepeda did, from 10 and 12% to 74 and 73%. It does seem plausible to me that someone will approximate Bunning's path from 38 to 63% with minimum 33% and maximum 74%.

Nellie Fox
Year Votes PCT
1971 39 10.8% -- min
1972 64 16.2%
1973 73 19.2%
1974 79 21.6%
1975 76 21%
1976 174 44.8%
1977 152 39.7%
1978 149 39.3%
1979 174 40.3%
1980 161 41.8%
1981 168 41.9%
1982 127 30.6% -- Aaron, Frank Robinson
1983 173 46.3%
1984 246 61%
1985 295 74.7% -- max

Jim Bunning
Year Votes PCT
1977 146 38.1%
1978 181 47.8%
1979 147 34%
1980 177 46%
1981 164 40.9%
1982 138 33.3% -- min -- Aaron, Frank Robinson
1983 138 36.9%
1984 201 49.9%
1985 214 54.2%
1986 279 65.6%
1987 289 70%
1988 317 74.2% -- max
1989 283 63.3% Bench, Yaz, Perry, Jenkins
1990 257 57.9% Palmer, Morgan, Fingers
1991 282 63.7%

Orlando Cepeda
Year Votes PCT
1980 48 12.5%
1981 77 19.2%
1982 42 10.1% -- min -- Aaron, Frank Robinson
1983 59 15.8%
1984 124 30.8%
1985 114 28.9%
1986 152 35.8%
1987 179 43.3%
1988 199 46.6%
1989 176 39.4% Bench, Yaz, Perry, Jenkins
1990 211 47.5% Palmer, Morgan, Fingers
1991 192 43.3%
1992 246 57.2%
1993 252 59.6%
1994 335 73.5% -- max

Note that support for all three candidates slumped in 1982 when Hank Aaron and Frank Robinson arrived. Support for Fox boomed and that for Cepeda swelled in their last three years eligible, but not for Bunning. Scores of Bunning voters, about 20%, dropped him when the strong classes of 1989 and 1990 arrived, including pitchers Perry, Jenkins, Palmer, and Fingers.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don't believe Hodges will be enshrined. Most of the sportswriters that swooned over the Brooklyn Dodgers and the 1969 Miracle Mets are either dead or retired. Indeed, most of the Dodger and Met fans who remember Hodges' accomplishments as adults are aging or deceased. Hence, it's going to be tough for Hodges to get traction with the VC.

I didn't realize that Fox, Cepeda, and Bunning came as close as they did with the BBWAA. Had Fox and Cepeda's spike come a year earlier, they would have made it in via the writers.

Bunning's spike in 1987 and 1988 is, I believe, an artificial spike, perhaps fueled by the Lords of MLB themselves. Bunning was elected to the U. S. House of Representatives in November, 1986, and took office in January, 1987. MLB always wants friends in high places, and I believe that Bunning's elevation to high Federal office was a factor in his spike. Bunning was elected by the VC in 1996, at a time where he was launching his 1998 candidacy for the U. S. Senate (a higher Federal office). Personally, I believe that if Bunning had not been elected to Congress, he would not be in the HOF today.

[Mike90]

Personally, I believe that if Bunning had not been elected to Congress, he would not be in the HOF today.

It's funny how stuff that has nothing whatsoever to do with a player's ability (being a powerful politician for example) affects voting for supposedly the highest honor in baseball.

[STLCards2]

Personally, I believe that if Bunning had not been elected to Congress, he would not be in the HOF today.

You might be right, but he did deserve his election, regardless.

[Paul Wendt]

Bunning's spike in 1987 and 1988 is, I believe, an artificial spike, perhaps fueled by the Lords of MLB themselves. Bunning was elected to the U. S. House of Representatives in November, 1986, and took office in January, 1987. MLB always wants friends in high places, and I believe that Bunning's elevation to high Federal office was a factor in his spike.
I don't see that swinging any weight with the BBWAA electorate although it may help a little to have the name in lights.

After Gibson in 1981, Aaron and Frank Robinson in 1982, there was a window of opportunity for election from the writers ballot. The ballot was weak and getting weaker for several seasons, hitting bottom in 1987 or 1988. Pitchers Marichal, Drysdale, Wilhelm (three Bunning colleagues) and Jim Hunter were elected. The first three were on those strong 1981 and 1982 ballots with Bunning and their elections were three steps in the ballot's "getting weaker for several seasons". Hunter arrived and made it through the window with support similar to Bunning's.
: 53% 68 76 Hunter
: 54% 65 70 Bunning
Next year Bunning scored 74%, then kaboom! Perry and Jenkins were there for his last three chances, plus Palmer for one and Fingers for two.

I have covered the leading pitcher candidates. Meanwhile Aparcio, Killebrew, and Billy Williams from the 1982 ballot also worked their way off the top end before 1988.
1988 election results (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_Hall_of_Fame_balloting,_1988)
1982 election results (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_Hall_of_Fame_balloting,_1982) (wikipedia)

[four tool]

Shouldn't you call it the Hall of "GREAT" then? A true Hall of Fame would include Roger Maris, Doc Gooden, Darryl Strawberry, Don Mattingly, Billy Martin, etc. and leave out Stan Covelseki, Arky Vaughan, Frank Baker, and Johnny Mize. If we want to take the terms literaly, than we should be fighting for a name change at Cooperstown. Its has never been a true Hall of Fame.

Sidenote: Wow, look at the list of famous New Yorkers that didn't make the HOF (this was not intentional). Throw in Guidry, Munson, Rice, Gordon-maybe the idea of east coast bias an HOF voting is wrong?:shhh: I would think that if there were so much bias, that many of these guys would have been enshrined.

I think it was a true hall of fame in the beginning. And fame can come and go, so do we bounce people in and out as their fame ebbs and flows?
And you're proving my point, yes there are people in the hall who don't deserve to be. I can't see using that as an excuse to include others because two wrongs don't make a right.

[STLCards2]

I think it was a true hall of fame in the beginning. And fame can come and go, so do we bounce people in and out as their fame ebbs and flows?
And you're proving my point, yes there are people in the hall who don't deserve to be. I can't see using that as an excuse to include others because two wrongs don't make a right.

I never claimed we should take the "Fame" term literaly. I was commenting on your statement that it should be the "HOFame not the HO very good". If it is so important that the semantics of the museum's name is proper, then you would logicaly have an issue with the name "Hall of Fame" too, since that is not what the museum actually is either. Who said anything about removing non-famous players? Just a semantics thing, no big deal.:)

Where did I say anything about inducting non-deserving players because other non-deserving guys are there. I was just making a point that east-coast bias isn't as strong as many feel.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I never claimed we should take the "Fame" term literaly. I was commenting on your statement that it should be the "HOFame not the HO very good". If it is so important that the semantics of the museum's name is proper, then you would logicaly have an issue with the name "Hall of Fame" too, since that is not what the museum actually is either. Who said anything about removing non-famous players? Just a semantics thing, no big deal.:)

Where did I say anything about inducting non-deserving players because other non-deserving guys are there. I was just making a point that east-coast bias isn't as strong as many feel.

For actual award voting, including the HOF, no. At least, not of recent memory. I've long contended that, myself. Press, yes. Brass tacks, no.

[STLCards2]

For actual award voting, including the HOF, no. At least, not of recent memory. I've long contended that, myself. Press, yes. Brass tacks, no.


I would agree with that. 2/3 of ESPN's coverage is about the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, and Dodgers. Thankfully, most of these guys don't vote.

[four tool]

I never claimed we should take the "Fame" term literaly. I was commenting on your statement that it should be the "HOFame not the HO very good". If it is so important that the semantics of the museum's name is proper, then you would logicaly have an issue with the name "Hall of Fame" too, since that is not what the museum actually is either. Who said anything about removing non-famous players? Just a semantics thing, no big deal.:)

Where did I say anything about inducting non-deserving players because other non-deserving guys are there. I was just making a point that east-coast bias isn't as strong as many feel.

You asked about calling it the hall of the great and then accuse me of semantics? I was responding to your comment about the title you used.

So just what did you mean by asking about "The Hall of the Great'?

[Paul Wendt]

quoted StLCards2 and replied
> . . . maybe the idea of east coast bias an HOF voting is wrong

I think it was a true hall of fame in the beginning.
EDIT: Oops, I misread that "I think it was true in the beginning." :blush:

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.

[STLCards2]

You asked about calling it the hall of the great and then accuse me of semantics? I was responding to your comment about the title you used.

So just what did you mean by asking about "The Hall of the Great'?

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 avoid confusion/conflict.