Dawson vs. Raines

[penneyAA]

Growing up an Expos fan, Andre Dawson and Tim Raines were my favorite players.Both are clear cut HOF'ers in my opinion.Dawson rates higher in the gray ink and HOF monitor ratings and he did win an MVP award (perhaps a sentimental choice) but I've always thought of Raines as the better player.I don't think there was a better player in the NL in the mid 80's than him.Both were well respected in the clubhouse (especially Dawson),although Raines did have a brief drug rap early in his career.Dawson's been eligible for a few years and is close to going in while Raines' first year is next year.Does he deserve to be elected in his first year?Was he better than Dawson?To me, the first ballot HOF'ers are the Wagners, Cobbs, Ruths etc. of the world, not Tim Raines, but what 2002 retirees will he be competing with?

[Chickazoola]

I think Raines is surefire HOF'er, and a better player in almost every way than Dawson. The edges Dawson has are in power and probably defense, but Raines was just a phenomenal player.

The reason Raines probably won't get in first ballot are that he was overshadowed by Rickey Henderson who basically had the same skill set but was even better than Raines. Also Raines was through as a full time player at 35, and he fell of quite a bit from his monster 1987 season. Also he played his best years for the Expos which really does little to help one get attention.

[KCGHOST]

To me Raines is a bona fide HoFer. Middle of the pack kind of guy. Sadly he has little chance of getting. For some reason his whole career flew under the radar of the BBWAA.

On the other hand we have a guy, Dawson, who might make it, who has a much less impressive career. To me he is an all-star kind of guy, not an HoFer.

[digglahhh]

I think Raines is deserving, but I wouldn't even be surprised if he goes one and done on the ballot.

I don't think Dawson is deserving at all.

Basically, all the things about Raines that make him better than he might seem at first glance, make Dawson worse than he appears.

Raines was a HOF caliber ballplayer, especially at his best, but I really doubt the voting body will see it that way.

[Walt Zink]

i think dawson IS a HOFer. if he was still able to run like he did early on, he would be a lock. montreal's field really ruined his knees, as it did for a lot of others. i think he gets overshadowed because he played in montreal and was known simply as a power guy when his defense was great for so long. not to mention the power numbers people now put up.

him and dale murphy, to me, are in the same area. nice guys who are unfortunately left out because they were waning when the "now" guys were coming into play and putting up massive numbers. it's a shame, really.

not to mention: 438 HRs and almost 2800 hits isn't the hallmark of a slouch :) plus he's one of 6 guys with 300+ HRs/SBs.

[PVNICK]

Dawson (or Dale Murphy) for a brief spell before he hurt his knees was considered the best player in the NL not named Mike Schmidt. During their time in Montreal Dawson was the "can do it all player." He hit for a decent average, had power, could run and field. Unfortunately that year with the Cubs with 47 HR and the MVP sort of turned the tide on him. He no longer had the speed and was largely a decent power, decent average, low OBP solid RF with absurd r/RBI ratios.

Raines was a phenomenon when he came on in 1981. He had over 70 SB in that 100 game season. However, within a year or two the drug issue cropped up and he slid under the radar. Then with Dawson hurt or hurting he moved to center where I don't think he had great results. By the mid 80s he was leading the league in batting, or runs or OBP and was about as dangerous and complete an offensive player as you could find in either league. The trade to Chicago put him on a back burner, but anyone who watched him with the Yankees saw what a consummate professional he was right to the day he retired.

I think Raines was the better ball player. Both sort of slid from the spotlight perhaps before their primes where through. Dawson was a great, great ballplayer for a brief window in the early 80s who now is a poster child for guys with a lot of RBI and low BB who were "overrated."

[Brad Harris]

Raines. No contest.

[WhiteSoxSteve]

Raines.

Dawson's .323 obp just doesn't cut it. And he didn't even deserve that MVP.

[538280]

Raines was a far, far better player. A more valuable hitter even without baserunning. Dawson may be a little better defensively but overall Raines is still far better. Raines IMO is a top 50 player of all time.

[penneyAA]

I do think Raines was one of the best all-time.Only injuries prevented him from reaching 3000 hits, remarkable considering how much he drew walks.
Fifth all-time in steals and number one in SB percentage.In the top 50 all-time in runs, times on base, runs created, walks and intentional walks.Top 100 in total bases and hits.

Dawson was ok, too.8 GG.8 AS (7 as starter).Top 50 in hits, doubles, and RBI.Top 25 in extra base hits and total bases.Top 100 in runs, runs created and times on base.

Both HoFer's.

[The Splendid Splinter]

number one in SB percentage

he will be number 2 soon. carlos beltran needs 16 more attempts to qualify. he's at like 88% or something insane like that and he could be caught like 14 out of 16 and still have a better % than raines. im just saying. raines did so many more attempts than beltran and still have that high of a % is impressive in itself. not putting down on raines or anything. just pointing that out.

i think raines is a HoFer. Dawson on the other hand... he's in the hall of very very good.

[plask_stirlac]

Here's how good Raines is: take his 5 best seasons and compare them to leadoff "king" Rickey Henderson, first-ballot lock. Rickey is tremendous, of course, with 90 and 85 being All-Time type seasons. But after those two Raines picks up ground quickly, with more efficient full years. He hit as a star LF not even counting steals. I mean his 5th best offensive output was probably 1984's .309/.393/.429 (and .376 was average) with 75/85 steals, .322 EqA. Translated by BP that's .331/.417/.522.

Obviously a career is more than that but Raines was also really good outside of those top 5 or 7 years. He was excellent from strike to strike (81-94) and very good in part-time duty after that.

[brett]

Growing up an Expos fan, Andre Dawson and Tim Raines were my favorite players.Both are clear cut HOF'ers in my opinion.Dawson rates higher in the gray ink and HOF monitor ratings and he did win an MVP award (perhaps a sentimental choice) but I've always thought of Raines as the better player.I don't think there was a better player in the NL in the mid 80's than him.Both were well respected in the clubhouse (especially Dawson),although Raines did have a brief drug rap early in his career.Dawson's been eligible for a few years and is close to going in while Raines' first year is next year.Does he deserve to be elected in his first year?Was he better than Dawson?To me, the first ballot HOF'ers are the Wagners, Cobbs, Ruths etc. of the world, not Tim Raines, but what 2002 retirees will he be competing with?

If Raines doesn't get in when eligible, he will become the greatest eligible player not in the hall-better than Allen and Santo. Raines is possibly around the 40th greatest player in history.

Dawson is overrated. He was not a centerfielder for much of his career. He had unbelievably low walk totals. My guess is he would probably rank around 200th all time.

[penneyAA]

If Raines doesn't get in when eligible, he will become the greatest eligible player not in the hall-better than Allen and Santo. Raines is possibly around the 40th greatest player in history.

Dawson is overrated. He was not a centerfielder for much of his career. He had unbelievably low walk totals. My guess is he would probably rank around 200th all time.

Dawson's numbers are very similar to Ernie Banks'.Differences being Dawson was a gold glove outfielder and one of the best power/speed combos ever and Banks,although not a great shortstop or basestealer, was one of the first power hitters to play that position.Banks got to 500HR and played in a high profile city.Dawson was hidden in Canada during his prime.Most think Dawson isn't quite a HoFer, yet Banks was first ballot.I don't see much of a gap really.

[Walt Zink]

Dawson's numbers are very similar to Ernie Banks'.Differences being Dawson was a gold glove outfielder and one of the best power/speed combos ever and Banks,although not a great shortstop or basestealer, was one of the first power hitters to play that position.Banks got to 500HR and played in a high profile city.Dawson was hidden in Canada during his prime.Most think Dawson isn't quite a HoFer, yet Banks was first ballot.I don't see much of a gap really.

agreed. and i watched raines growing up. i have to be honest, i see one person here listing him as 40th all-time? nooooo way. sorry. i could list off 50 that easily are better. and these are names we all know very well, so don't ask for a list.

[Brad Harris]

If Raines doesn't get in when eligible, he will become the greatest eligible player not in the hall-better than Allen and Santo.

My initial reaction to this was "not a bigger jip than Santo" but upon some reflection now I'm not so sure. One thing I know for sure, it'll be fun to post that "Most Deserving Eligible Player" poll here at BBF after Raines' royal screwing is made official in January. :laugh

[Walt Zink]

i'm looking at raines' career, and man, he held on WAY too long, though. i can't see him even getting above 60% of what he needs.

[brett]

Dawson's numbers are very similar to Ernie Banks'.Differences being Dawson was a gold glove outfielder and one of the best power/speed combos ever and Banks,although not a great shortstop or basestealer, was one of the first power hitters to play that position.Banks got to 500HR and played in a high profile city.Dawson was hidden in Canada during his prime.Most think Dawson isn't quite a HoFer, yet Banks was first ballot.I don't see much of a gap really.

Dawson was done as a centerfielder by '84 though. He won 4 gold gloves as a corner outfielder despite the fact that he was statistically an AVERAGE corner outfielder in those years.

[538280]

Dawson's numbers are very similar to Ernie Banks'.Differences being Dawson was a gold glove outfielder and one of the best power/speed combos ever and Banks,although not a great shortstop or basestealer, was one of the first power hitters to play that position.Banks got to 500HR and played in a high profile city.Dawson was hidden in Canada during his prime.Most think Dawson isn't quite a HoFer, yet Banks was first ballot.I don't see much of a gap really.

The main difference to me is that Banks had a few years where he legitimately close to an MVP type player (I'm not sure he deserved his MVPs, with Aaron and Mays also having great years, but they were MVP type. A SS with a 150+ OPS+ is always a very special season). Dawson's best years are around a 140 OPS+ from a very good CFer, but that didn't last long. Most of his career he was a so-so hitting corner OF. Dawson was a similar hitter to Banks over his career but doesn't have the peak, and that's even before you consider Banks in his peak was a SS. I think Banks is a little overrated, though still a HOFer, and I think he's definitely better than Dawson.