What Happened To The 80s Stars?

[willshad]

Im wondering if anyone has any input on why so many of the stars of the 80s couldnt keep up their performance into the 90s. I can name lots of players who looked like sure hall of famers towards the end of the 80s, or at least that theyd become strong candidates, who burned out; either due to injury or decreasing performance level. You can site the new offensive era , but the phenomenon seemed to occur with hitters as well as pitchers. Some were getting up there in age as the 90s came to start but quite afew were still young or should have been entering their prime. Even the guys who DID make the hall of fame all suffered declines in the 90s...guys like Ripken, Puckett, Murray, Yount, Henderson, Sandberg, and Boggs. The only guys I can think of who improved in the new decade were Palmeiro ( and we all know why) and Molitor and maybe Gwynn. Funny also that the ones who seemed like nothing in the 80s went on to have hall of fame careers..like Bonds, Maddux, Glavine, and Randy johnson.

Pitchers:

Dwight Gooden
Bret Saberhagen
David Cone
orel Hershiser
Mike Scott
Dave Stewart

Hitters:

Daryl Strawberry
Don Mattingly
Eric Davis
Will Clark
Tim Raines
Jose Canseco
Ruben Sierra
Dale Murphy
Pedro Guerrero
Andre Dawson
Dwight Evans
Fred Mcgriff
Mike Greenwell
Vince Coleman
Jack Clark
Kevin Mitchell

If you would have asked me at the close of the 80s, Id have told you that at least half of these guys would end up hall of famers.

[Mike D.]

I don't think that there is any real trend here, I'm pretty sure you could find a similar list at any decade break.

A lot of the players on your list had only been playing a few years at the change of the decade (Davis, Will Clark, Canseco, Sierra, Greenwell, Mitchell).

Others were simply going into their natural decline phases (Evans, Jack Clark, Murphy, Guerrero, Stewart, Scott).

A few of them had long and successful careers and will have a shot at Cooperstown, a few might make it (Raines, McGriff, Dawson).

Others we done in by injuries and/or substance abuse problems (Mattingly, Strawberry, Gooden).

Some had long, successful careers that aren't quite HOF caliber (Hershiser, Saberhagen, Cone).

Others, just weren't very good (Coleman).

[Honus Wagner Rules]

As for Dwight Gooden his decline was caused by the Mets blantant overuse of Gooden. He threw a ton of innings in his first five seasons.

[digglahhh]

As for Dwight Gooden his decline was caused by the Mets blantant overuse of Gooden. Hie threw a ton of innings in his first five seasons.

Gooden threw 191 innings in his first and only minor league season, striking out 300 in the process.

[Ubiquitous]

Nothing really unusual about the flame outs/peter outs. The only thing different is that you were probably alive and around when all of these 80's players flamed out while you were not alive when the 30's or 50's players flamed out. So you have nothing to compare the 80's to.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Gooden threw 191 innings in his first and only minor league season, striking out 300 in the process.

I realize Gooden was so good that the Mets couldn't help themselves. Here are Gooden's innings pitched in his first five seasons.

1984: 218.0 IP (age 19)
1985: 276.0 IP (20)
1986: 250.0 IP (21)
1987: 179.7 IP (22)
1988: 248.3 IP (23)

That was a ridiculous number of innings for a young pitcher. Gooden's best season was at age 20, his second best at age 19, and his third best at age 21. After that he was just another pitcher. :dismay:

[Brooklyn]

I realize Gooden was so good that the Mets couldn't help themselves. Here are Gooden's innings pitched in his first five seasons.

1984: 218.0 IP (age 19)
1985: 276.0 IP (20)
1986: 250.0 IP (21)
1987: 179.7 IP (22)
1988: 248.3 IP (23)

That was a ridiculous number of innings for a young pitcher. Gooden's best season was at age 20, his second best at age 19, and his third best at age 21. After that he was just another pitcher. :dismay:

Here are Bob Feller's innings pitched in his age 19 to 23 seasons:

1938 (age 19) 277.7
1939 (age 20) 296.7
1940 (age 21) 320.3
1941 (age 22) 343.0
1942 (age 23) war

Or Walter Johnson:

1907 (age 19) 110.3
1908 (age 20) 256.3
1909 (age 21) 296.3
1910 (age 22) 370.0
1911 (age 23) 322.3

Or Christy Matthewson:

1900 (age 19): 33.7
1901 (age 20) 336.0
1901 (age 21) 276.7
1903 (age 22) 366.3
1904 (age 23) 367.7

these three seemed to hold out ok. While innings early on might be indicitive of career length, it is certainly not the only factor. If Gooden could have kept his nose clean, I don't think the innings would have stopped him.

[Chickazoola]

Here are Bob Feller's innings pitched in his age 19 to 23 seasons:

1938 (age 19) 277.7
1939 (age 20) 296.7
1940 (age 21) 320.3
1941 (age 22) 343.0
1942 (age 23) war

Or Walter Johnson:

1907 (age 19) 110.3
1908 (age 20) 256.3
1909 (age 21) 296.3
1910 (age 22) 370.0
1911 (age 23) 322.3

Or Christy Matthewson:

1900 (age 19): 33.7
1901 (age 20) 336.0
1901 (age 21) 276.7
1903 (age 22) 366.3
1904 (age 23) 367.7

these three seemed to hold out ok. While innings early on might be indicitive of career length, it is certainly not the only factor. If Gooden could have kept his nose clean, I don't think the innings would have stopped him.

Johnson and Mathewson pitched in a much different environment and aren't good comps, and Feller probably would have burned out much earlier were it not for the war. Also Feller wasn't the same pitcher after age 29, and the 1946 season seems to have took its toll. The early innings ended up hurting his longevity in the long run. His career pattern actually resembles Gooden's quite a bit.

Cocaine does not cause arm problems. Good after about 1990 or so really wasn't very good, and that has a lot to due with a loss of stuff due to arm problems. Notice the dramatic drop in strikeouts from 1990 to 1991.

Finally the exceptions prove the rule in this case. Mathewson, Johnson and Young are freaks of nature, and are a stark contrast to the thousands of pitchers who had careers ended early by overuse. Cocaine didn't help Doc Gooden, but it was arm troubles due to overuse early on that truly derailed him.

[MadHatter]

Every decade has some stars - players who aren't necessarily up to HOF standards, but are the stars of the day.

[Brad Harris]

Gooden, Strawberry = cocaine.

Cone just...I dunno...seems like he should have done more in his peak.

Davis, Mattingly and Clark were Hall of Famers minus the injuries.

Saberhagen wasn't Hall of Fame bound unless he could rid himself of the "every other year" thing.

Hershiser had one great season and that was it. No one ever thought of Scott as a future Hall of Famer.

Stewart was old to begin with and besides the 20-wins per year playing in front of the game's best offense, wasn't anything special.

Raines had a Hall of Fame career and the voters are just idiots.

Canseco was on pace, if overrated along the way, but the injuries kept him away.

Ruben Sierra had a few good years but was never really a star.

Murphy is a guy everyone talked about as a future Hall of Famer. Can't help but wonder if the 399 (versus 400) is what kept him out.

Pedro Guerrero had loads of potential but was never the star he could have been in the early and mid-80s.

Dawson is another guy who looked like a sure thing by the time he retired.

McGriff quietly amassed a career worthy of election.

Greenwell started hot but never sustained anything worth getting excited about. Coleman was nothing but a speed demon. Jack Clark was that generation's version of Rusty Staub. Kevin Mitchell had one monster year and a couple good seasons in Cincy, but never had a serious run.

Dwight Evans...well, we all know what his story is. Still, a forgotten star.

Point being that only a handful of those players looked to have Hall careers at the end of the 80s. Sure they each had their day in the sun, but half those guys never had a serious case for being on their way to Cooperstown.

[yankillaz]

I realize Gooden was so good that the Mets couldn't help themselves. Here are Gooden's innings pitched in his first five seasons.

1984: 218.0 IP (age 19)
1985: 276.0 IP (20)
1986: 250.0 IP (21)
1987: 179.7 IP (22)
1988: 248.3 IP (23)

That was a ridiculous number of innings for a young pitcher. Gooden's best season was at age 20, his second best at age 19, and his third best at age 21. After that he was just another pitcher. :dismay:

Are you considering the pitches 20 years ago like you would nowadays? C'mon HWR. You can't treat Gooden like you would to Verlander, those weren't the same times.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Johnson and Mathewson pitched in a much different environment and aren't good comps, and Feller probably would have burned out much earlier were it not for the war. Also Feller wasn't the same pitcher after age 29, and the 1946 season seems to have took its toll. The early innings ended up hurting his longevity in the long run. His career pattern actually resembles Gooden's quite a bit.

Cocaine does not cause arm problems. Good after about 1990 or so really wasn't very good, and that has a lot to due with a loss of stuff due to arm problems. Notice the dramatic drop in strikeouts from 1990 to 1991.

Finally the exceptions prove the rule in this case. Mathewson, Johnson and Young are freaks of nature, and are a stark contrast to the thousands of pitchers who had careers ended early by overuse. Cocaine didn't help Doc Gooden, but it was arm troubles due to overuse early on that truly derailed him.
You beat me to the punch! :happy: You can't compare deadball pitchers to a 1980s pitcher. The offensive environment was totally different. Plus, in the Deadball era pitchers didn't pitch all out on every pitch. Sometimes they threw 80% on pitches and pace themselves. You can't do that in the modern game or a pitcher will get hammered. This is why Deadball pitchers could pitch 300-400 innings per season.

As I said before the Mets destroyed Gooden's wondrous arm.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Are you considering the pitches 20 years ago like you would nowadays? C'mon HWR. You can't treat Gooden like you would to Verlander, those weren't the same times.

I'm not sure what you mean? Pitching strategy hasn't changed that much since the mid 1980s. Shoot, Clemens, Maddux, Glavine, and Smoltz were all active in the mid-to-late 1980s. If the Tigers had pitched Verlander 250+ innings since his rookie season what do you think would be the reaction from the media and fans?

[plask_stirlac]

My question is what happened to the pitchers between Eckersley and Clemens, and between Ryan and Clemens?

Most recent SP (or SP/RP) HOF inductees, debut years: Eckersley 1975
Ryan 1966 (1967 seriously)
Sutton 1966
Niekro 1964
Jim Bunning, 1955
Carlton, 1965

[Honus Wagner Rules]

My question is what happened to the pitchers between Eckersley and Clemens, and between Ryan and Clemens?

Most recent SP (or SP/RP) HOF inductees, debut years: Eckersley 1975
Ryan 1966 (1967 seriously)
Sutton 1966
Niekro 1964
Jim Bunning, 1955
Carlton, 1965

The 1960s produced an unusally high number of 300 game winners.

Perry (1962)
Neikro (1964)
Carlton (1965)
Sutton (1966)
Ryan (1966)
Seaver (1967)


This is just a historical accident that all these future 300 game winners debuted in such a short time.

[Freakshow]

The 1960s produced an unusally high number of 300 game winners.

Perry (1962)
Neikro (1964)
Carlton (1965)
Sutton (1966)
Ryan (1966)
Seaver (1967)


This is just a historical accident that all these future 300 game winners debuted in such a short time.
Surely you can propose a better theory than "accident".

Try this. The extreme longevity of so many pitchers of this generation is due to:

1) The easier conditions for pitchers during their formative years. The years 1963-68 were the years of the big strike zone. In 1969 they lowered the mound and shrunk the strike zone. It's heavy work loads before age 25 that tend to shorten careers.

2) The transition to five-man rotations in their later years. These pitchers who developed and trained with four-man rotations, were well-equipped to coast through their declining years with a lighter work schedule. This is akin to the Sunday pitchers like Ted Lyons in earlier times.

There are probably other factors you could posit, but these are the first two that come to mind.

[Buzzaldrin]

Nothing really unusual about the flame outs/peter outs. The only thing different is that you were probably alive and around when all of these 80's players flamed out while you were not alive when the 30's or 50's players flamed out. So you have nothing to compare the 80's to.

I just picked a decade and thought of the 50s stars who never made it to the Hall for one reason or another, some injured, a few just faded out, some only had a few early great years-

top of my head:

Ted Kluszewski
Rocky Colavito
Charlie Maxwell
Joe Adcock
Vada Pinson
Jim Lemon
Gil Hodges
Roy Sievers
Harvey Kuenn
Vic Power
Gus Bell

pitchers:

Johnny Antonelli
Herb Score
Bobby Shantz
Roy Face
Bily Pierce
Don Newcombe
Harvey Haddix

...if I can do this off the top of my head then it's a pretty safe bet we could do it for any deacde in baseball history. I don't think the 80s are especially unique.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Cone's chances at the HOF would have improved exponentially IF:

(A) He, and not Orel Hershiser, had won the Cy Young Award.

(B) The 1994 strike had not occurred, giving Cone a third 20-win season (in all likelihood).

(C) He had been able to cross the 200 win barrier.

Had he merely crossed the 200 win barrier, his candidacy would have resembled Curt Schilling's at a similar point. Cone's career is far more truncated than Schilling's, with his super seasons further apart from each other, but he's also won a CYA, which Schilling hasn't. Schilling's an icon now, while Cone will probably not make the HOF, but Cone isn't far from being at the level Schilling is at right now.

[nerfan]

You beat me to the punch! :happy: You can't compare deadball pitchers to a 1980s pitcher. The offensive environment was totally different. Plus, in the Deadball era pitchers didn't pitch all out on every pitch. Sometimes they threw 80% on pitches and pace themselves. You can't do that in the modern game or a pitcher will get hammered. This is why Deadball pitchers could pitch 300-400 innings per season.

As I said before the Mets destroyed Gooden's wondrous arm.

Not only did they push him many innings, he also worked out in the bullpen a lot. They didn't even learn their lessons, with Generation K blowing their arms out.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Not only did they push him many innings, he also worked out in the bullpen a lot. They didn't even learn their lessons, with Generation K blowing their arms out.

I remember that group, Bobby Jones, Jason Isringhausen, Bill Pulsipher. They were supposed to be the new Seaver, Koosman, etc.

[plask_stirlac]

As some have mentioned elsewhere, there were mostly guys in the 80s who "hit for average" or "hit for power" in the general sense. Guys like Schmidt and Brett could both get on base the same, but in different styles. Darryl was big-time low raw average but great otherwise.

Then the true stars could do it both more. Frank Thomas hit .318 with 138 walks and 32 HR in 1991, Bonds hit .311 with 33 HR in 1990, etc. and some 80s stars could adjust (McGriff, Clark) and some weren't as able to.

[Ubiquitous]

I said it before somewhere else on here but I really believe that the 70's and 80's because of the pitchers, the strikezone, the field, and everything else a hitter had to choose (not really choose per se). They could either be power hitters or high average hitters but they generally could not be both. It was a rather unique time for baseball since liveball inception it was possible for powerhitters to have high averages and then during the 70's and 80's they didn't have it. Then in the 90's the high average power hitter came back.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I said it before somewhere else on here but I really believe that the 70's and 80's because of the pitchers, the strikezone, the field, and everything else a hitter had to choose (not really choose per se). They could either be power hitters or high average hitters but they generally could not be both. It was a rather unique time for baseball since liveball inception it was possible for powerhitters to have high averages and then during the 70's and 80's they didn't have it. Then in the 90's the high average power hitter came back.

So you don't buy into ElHalo's theory that the 1980s was the lowest quality of baseball since the 1880s? :happy:

[Ubiquitous]

Considering that ElHalo neither saw the 1880's nor the 1980's, no.

[Mild Sauce]

Maybe it's because I'm a Cubs fan, but I can't figure out, with the career that he had, how Andre Dawson is not a hall of famer. He had it all, power, speed, solid hitter for average, strong throwing arm, all around good defender, intimidated even the most hardened pitchers. I don't get it, was it because he was a quieter guy who didn't get involved with self promotion? I doubt it, since at the time there wasn't near the amount of self promotion you see in sports today. I seriously just don't get it.

[Ubiquitous]

Andre didn't really have power, didn't really have speed, didn't really hit for average, and he definitely didn't have patience. He had a strong throwing arm.

Andre if his knees had held up could have made a run for the hall but they didn't hold up.

In his youth he was a good all around player which tends to get overlooked but once his knees went he wasn't anything close to it. Sure he would show flashes of pop and once in a blue moon get his average up a bit but none of it was really hall worthy.

[willshad]

Andre didn't really have power, didn't really have speed, didn't really hit for average, and he definitely didn't have patience. He had a strong throwing arm.

Andre if his knees had held up could have made a run for the hall but they didn't hold up.

In his youth he was a good all around player which tends to get overlooked but once his knees went he wasn't anything close to it. Sure he would show flashes of pop and once in a blue moon get his average up a bit but none of it was really hall worthy.

youre selling him a bit short...i dont think anyone with 438 career home runs in a low scoring era can be said to' not really have power'. and he did have over 300 steals, so he did have some speed. His career ended just as the offensive era was beginning..its interesting to wonder how he would have done if he began his career in 1996 instead of 1976. He probably would have been another Vlad Guerrero

[Ubiquitous]

But he didn't have HoF power nor HoF speed.

[willshad]

sure he does..he had as much power as any of his contemporaries besides maybe Schmidt. I dont see a problem with Dawson in the hall...he is the same as Dave Winfield, except Winfield hung around a couple more seasons to get 3000 hits. Nobody seems to have a problem with Winfield in the hall..what makes Dawson so much worse? is it just because of the 3000 hits?

[Brad Harris]

But he didn't have HoF power nor HoF speed.

In 1993, when Andre Dawson hit his 400th home run, he became only the 24th person to have accomplished that. The following season he became only the 29th player to collect 1,500 RBI. When he retired two years later, Dawson ranked 22nd in career HR and 24th in career RBI. He wasn't surpassed on the HR chart until the "steroids era" sluggers (McGwire, Bonds, Sosa, Palmeiro, etc.) began reaching those totals.

In the 30 years from 1964-1993, Andre Dawson put up 13 seasons of 20+ home runs, which was well accepted as a plateau for a "power hitter" during that era. Only Reggie Jackson, Willie Stargell, Dave Winfield, Mike Schmidt and Eddie Murray had more such seasons.

I don't see how someone can credibly suggest Dawson wasn't a power hitter unless except by imposing modern statistical standards of power on players from an earlier (and much different) era.

[Ubiquitous]

Andre Dawson the power hitter had a grand total of 5 seasons in the top 5 for single season home runs. Andre Dawson had 3 seasons in the top 5 of SLG, and he only had 5 seasons out of 21 seasons in which his SLG was at or above .500 a benchmark for SLG during his day. He averaged around 25 homers a year for a very long time. Yes that is rare but simply being rare doesn't mean it is of hall of fame value or that he is a slugger.

Dave Parker had 4 seasons in the top 5 of homers, Dave had 3 seasons in the top 5 of SLG. Dale Murphy has 7 seasons in the top 5 homers and 5 seasons in the the top 5 SLG.

I don't see how someone can credibly suggest Dawson wasn't a power hitter unless except by imposing modern statistical standards of power on players from an earlier (and much different) era

No I'm imposing historical standards that apply to about 90 years of liveball history. In 1955 you wouldn't call 25 homers a year a "power hitter", in 1998 you wouldn't do that, and in 1929 you wouldn't either. Not being a power hitter doesn't make you bad. I'd rather consider Andre Dawson a good all around player then a less then mediocre power hitter.

[jalbright]

Why stop at the top five? If you go to top 10 in single season homers, he did it nine times, and, since you mention slugging percentage, he was in the top ten in that category eight times. I wish we had the top ten in isolated power, and I suspect he'd do well in that as well.

[plask_stirlac]

Dawson needs a re-do on 1984-85, he had not much going on at all. To get in the Hall one has to overcome injuries. If those were big years, he'd probably be in.

He never had 200 hits or 50 walks in a season, waiving 1981. Though those are round and arbitrary, he just did not get on base enough and there are many other numbers for that. So he did not have many runs scored which might be looked at, a good but not superb RBI guy for terms of appearance, etc.

[Ubiquitous]

Why stop at the top five? If you go to top 10 in single season homers, he did it nine times, and, since you mention slugging percentage, he was in the top ten in that category eight times. I wish we had the top ten in isolated power, and I suspect he'd do well in that as well.

Because I think top 5 is a better representation of hall of fame worthiness. Secondly somebody in the top 5 has a much much better chance of actually being close to the leader then somebody who is 8th or 9th. For instance in 1988 Dawson finished 9th with 24 the leader had 39 in the NL 42 in the AL.. Something like 30 guys hit between 25 and 20 homers in the bigs that year. Lower it down by 2 homers and now you got something like 40 to 45 players. Being in a group with that many people doesn't really make me think elite. While being in the top 5 which is still far from perfect would more times then not elevate your from that pack of players.

[Hack_Miller]

No one seems to mention Dawson's 8 Gold Gloves in CF, one of the hardest positions to play in baseball. Yes Hawk got injured a lot and he was never terribly selective with the strike zone but overall I'm just not getting why it's so hard for him to get some love.

More than likely Jim Rice gets in next year and while Rice could rake, he was never Dawson's equal as an all around player. I hope Dawson makes it in before his time is up and he doesn't have to wait around for the veteran's committee to put him there.

[Ubiquitous]

No one seems to mention Dawson's 8 Gold Gloves in CF

The likely reason is because he only got 4 gold gloves as a CF'er.

[jalbright]

Because I think top 5 is a better representation of hall of fame worthiness. Secondly somebody in the top 5 has a much much better chance of actually being close to the leader then somebody who is 8th or 9th. For instance in 1988 Dawson finished 9th with 24 the leader had 39 in the NL 42 in the AL.. Something like 30 guys hit between 25 and 20 homers in the bigs that year. Lower it down by 2 homers and now you got something like 40 to 45 players. Being in a group with that many people doesn't really make me think elite. While being in the top 5 which is still far from perfect would more times then not elevate your from that pack of players.

Ubi, you're mixing and matching arguments here, IMO. You say Dawson didn't have power based on his lack of top five finishes on a single season basis. But if you look at who's in the top ten, he does pretty darned well. He had power, maybe not spectacular power, but that's not what you said. At the very least, now you're qualifying it to "elite power" or "power I associate with a HOFer", which are significantly different than saying Dawson didn't have power.

This is a direct quote from you:
Andre didn't really have power

[Hack_Miller]

The likely reason is because he only got 4 gold gloves as a CF'er.

Alas I was mistaken, yes 4 of his Gold Gloves were at CF, the other 4 in RF. Thanks for pointing that one out.

But he didn't have HoF power nor HoF speed

We need some stats speak directly to speed and power over the course of a career don't we?

I think a Lahman search on guys who hit 500+ 2B, 425+ HRs and 300+ SBs plus 8 Gold Gloves at any position would do. I wonder how many HOF-eligible guys we come up with who aren't in the HOF...other than Dawson

[Ubiquitous]

Ubi, you're mixing and matching arguments here, IMO. You say Dawson didn't have power based on his lack of top five finishes on a single season basis. But if you look at who's in the top ten, he does pretty darned well. He had power, maybe not spectacular power, but that's not what you said. At the very least, now you're qualifying it to "elite power" or "power I associate with a HOFer", which are significantly different than saying Dawson didn't have power.

This is a direct quote from you:

I was responding to a poster who was asking why Andre wasn't in the hall when he had all these things. My reply was that Andre in terms of a career didn't have all of these things at a hall of fame level. If his knees had held up he probably would have but they didn't so his speed and position advantages disappeared. Leaving him with just some power, not great power, not hall of fame power. Obviously Andre Dawson was no Rey Ordonez or Ozzie Smith, but in terms of power hitters his production as a power hitter isn't really close to the hall of fame level.

[Buzzaldrin]

In 1955 you wouldn't call 25 homers a year a "power hitter", in 1998 you wouldn't do that, and in 1929 you wouldn't either. Not being a power hitter doesn't make you bad. I'd rather consider Andre Dawson a good all around player then a less then mediocre power hitter.

I agree with most of your observations concerning Ander and the hall. heck, I saw his whole career, and nobody was saying "that guy's a hall of famer!"- he was just a good guy to have on your team cause he was good. No one said "Hall?" until after he retired, and usually quite a while after he retired.

I used your quote however, because I can't agree with that statement. Players in 1955 and 1929 who hit 25 homers were most definitely power hitters.

Certainly in the NL- between 1924 and 1947, there were only four seasons a slugger topped 40. In the 50s, it was reversed. The Al had the inferior slugging power (except for Mantle), but if you look at the slugging names from both eras and both leagues, they compare with Dawson in yearly prodcution.

Al Rosen, Jackie Jensen, Gus Zernial, Larry Doby, Roy Sievers, and co. for the 50s, and Mel Ott, Joe Medwick, Wally Berger, Hack Wilson, Dolph Camili and co in the 20s and 30s.

Note- this is just homers, the 30s guys tended to slug better than Dawson because of higher averages.

[jalbright]

The real Achilles heel of Dawson isn't his power, it was his OBP. He had an above average BA by 14 points, but his OBP was lower than average by 9 points (.323 vs .332) His OBP is lower than any HOF outfielder by 20 points (19 if you count Yount as an OF). This also means his rate of creating outs is high. I think this factor moves what otherwise would be a solid HOF case to the edges of the in/out line. I still tend to think he's over the line, but I will clearly concede that's a judgment call.

[Ubiquitous]

I used your quote however, because I can't agree with that statement. Players in 1955 and 1929 who hit 25 homers were most definitely power hitters.

Certainly in the NL- between 1924 and 1947, there were only four seasons a slugger topped 40. In the 50s, it was reversed. The Al had the inferior slugging power (except for Mantle), but if you look at the slugging names from both eras and both leagues, they compare with Dawson in yearly prodcution.

Al Rosen, Jackie Jensen, Gus Zernial, Larry Doby, Roy Sievers, and co. for the 50s, and Mel Ott, Joe Medwick, Wally Berger, Hack Wilson, Dolph Camili and co in the 20s and 30s.

Note- this is just homers, the 30s guys tended to slug better than Dawson because of higher averages.

Maybe Joe Medwick was considered a power hitter back then I don't know, but I never thought of him as a power hitter. Mel Ott was hitting over 30 every year while Andre was good for 20 to 25. The rest are a lot of flame outs and guys with some pop. Besides Mel Ott I think if you were to ask people name sluggers of those eras that those names would not come up, at least not for a very long time. If somebody said name the power hitters of the 20's and 30's people would immediately say names like Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, Ott, and Greenberg. In the 50's it would be names like Snider, Mays, Mantle, Banks, Williams, Aaron, Mathews, and Kiner.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Because I think top 5 is a better representation of hall of fame worthiness. Secondly somebody in the top 5 has a much much better chance of actually being close to the leader then somebody who is 8th or 9th. For instance in 1988 Dawson finished 9th with 24 the leader had 39 in the NL 42 in the AL.. Something like 30 guys hit between 25 and 20 homers in the bigs that year. Lower it down by 2 homers and now you got something like 40 to 45 players. Being in a group with that many people doesn't really make me think elite. While being in the top 5 which is still far from perfect would more times then not elevate your from that pack of players.


How's this for "Top 5-ing" it?

Power/Speed Number
1977 NL-20.0-10
1978 NL-26.4-1
1979 NL-29.2-2
1980 NL-22.7-2
1981 NL-25.0-1
1982 NL-28.9-1
1983 NL-28.1-2
1986 NL-18.9-9
Car-365.8-6

I'm not a big fan of Dawson's, but he did have a HOF-calilber peak in Montreal.

The HOF voting process has always been kinder to guys who stand out in one area, as opposed to candidates whose credentials depend on acknowledging a broad-based skill set.

[Ubiquitous]

Power-Speed is some made up number that really only applies to that time period. Dawson in 1978 hit 25 homers and had 28 stolen bases for a first place finish in power/speed. George Foster had 40 homers and 4 steals to lead the league in homers. Which one means more? Which one means vastly more?

Look at the names that top the power/speed list. Almost all of them played their career in the 70's and 80's.

Then look at Dawson's power/speed numbers. He has 6 top 5 finishes and all of them happened in the beginning of his career. Like I said before once his knees began to fail that part of his career was over. I don't deny that at one point Dawson was on a path for the hall. Andre was on the path to the hall because he did many things well initially, nothing really great, none of his skills by themselves was really hall of fame worthy but he had enough very good qualities that overall he had a shot for the hall. But then his knees went and he had to be moved from center. Which then takes away the positional advantage for his hall case. He lost his speed which took away his steals and his homer and steal points. So all that was left was his power and his power wasn't hall of fame power. So instead of a player who played a good centerfield, who could run, and who had some power you were left with a right fielder with gimpy knees (strong arm though), a so-so batting average, poor OBP, and who hit 25 homers or so a year.

[Brad Harris]

I wish we had the top ten in isolated power, and I suspect he'd do well in that as well.

8 times in the top 10 in ISO.

Also 8 times in the top 10 in EBH and 10 times in the top 10 in TB

[Mild Sauce]

When you have each of those skills, I don't see how you have to be a top 5 every year in each one to be in the hall of fame.

[jalbright]

8 times in the top 10 in ISO.

Also 8 times in the top 10 in EBH and 10 times in the top 10 in TB

Thanks. I was focused on ISO for the simple reason it focuses the discussion solely on power. What was your source for the ISO, BTW?

[Ubiquitous]

When you have each of those skills, I don't see how you have to be a top 5 every year in each one to be in the hall of fame.

I never said you had to be top 5 every year in each one. In fact I did say that Andre Dawson in his Montreal years was on the path to the hall. He fell off that path, it happens. Lots of players (relatively speaking of course) are on pace for the hall early in their career, and lots of players fall of that pace at some point. Which is why the players in the hall are so special. They are the ones that survived the crucible of playing professional baseball and survived it at a very high level of play.

[Ubiquitous]

From 1978 to 1993 (16 seasons) Andre Dawson has exactly one season in the top 100 single season ISO (minimum 100 games played). That is doing it in the most favorable way towards Andre. He has 6 seasons in the top 400. 10 seasons in the top 600, 13 seasons in the top 800, 14 seasons in the top 1000, 15 seasons in the top 1200, and 16 seasons in the top 1400. In total there were 3626 players seasons in those 16 seasons.

[AstrosFan]

Here's an interesting exercise. Look at the list of Hall of Fame position players (you can't really compare Dawson to pitchers), and make a list of all those you think Dawson was better than. If the list consists entirely of players you consider Hall of Fame mistakes, it doesn't really speak well of Dawson's credentials. If there are a few players who are legit HOFers, it gives him a better case. The same exercise can be repeated for Jim Rice, Dwight Evans, and any number of players who tend to divide voters on the issue.

[jjpm74]

Looking at that list, I'm not sure why Tim Raines appears on it. He had a Hall of Fame calibre career and I'd be very surprised if he doesn't eventually get elected.

[willshad]

Looking at that list, I'm not sure why Tim Raines appears on it. He had a Hall of Fame calibre career and I'd be very surprised if he doesn't eventually get elected.

the point wasnt really that these guys all had less than hall off fame careers. The point is that they all suffered serious declines and didnt end up nearly as good as they were on pace to do early in their careers. Tim Raines just wasnt the same player after 1987, no one can deny that. In fact up until that point, id probably have taken him over Rickey Henderson. When you consider that, then the way his career ended has got to be somewhat of a disappointment, hall of fame or not . He only scored 100 runs in a season twice after his age 27 season, in fact never even scored 90 in a season besides those 2 years, after doing so 6 years in a row...only hit .300 twice, in shortened seasons,(after hitting over .320 3 seasons in a row), and only had 50 steals once (51) after getting at least 70 in his first 6 seasons.. (By the way I dont think he will ever get elcected)

[willshad]

I don't think that there is any real trend here, I'm pretty sure you could find a similar list at any decade break.

A lot of the players on your list had only been playing a few years at the change of the decade (Davis, Will Clark, Canseco, Sierra, Greenwell, Mitchell).

Others were simply going into their natural decline phases (Evans, Jack Clark, Murphy, Guerrero, Stewart, Scott).

A few of them had long and successful careers and will have a shot at Cooperstown, a few might make it (Raines, McGriff, Dawson).

Others we done in by injuries and/or substance abuse problems (Mattingly, Strawberry, Gooden).

Some had long, successful careers that aren't quite HOF caliber (Hershiser, Saberhagen, Cone).

Others, just weren't very good (Coleman).



just seems strange to me. For instance, look at the star players that were playing in 1987, and see how many ended up going to the hall of fame.then do the same thing with 2007 and ask yourself how many are hall bound.

[leecemark]

--But we don't know which 2007 players might see that derailed by injury or unexpectedly rapid decline. It may be that more players active then will end up being Hall of famers than those active in 1987, but it is way too soon to say that with any certainty.

[HDH]

Back to the orginal posting; what you are describing is not unusual. 1990 is just a year like any other. Its not a stamp to change baseball eras. With all the players in MLB, it stands to reason that the decade marks a change to seveal players careers. In fact, you can pick any year and call it a water mark. Many of the players you mentioned were old, had injuries, or simply had short careers. Just to demonstrate, chose 1980 and 1970 as reference:

1970s Star - 1980s Flameout:

CF Fred Lynn (because of frequest injuries)
CF Ruppert Jones
CF Ron LeFlore (probably age)
CF Cesar Cedano
RF Sixto Lezcano
DH Mitchel Page
SS Garry Templeton (He seemed to lose his exceptional offense in the 1980s)
SS Roy Smalley
SP Frank Tannana (Had to reinvent himel)
SP J.R. Richard (stroke)
SP Vida Blue (drugs)
RF Ellis Valentine (drugs)
SP Randy Jones
SP Dennis Eckersley (As a SP)
SP Dave Goltz
SP Jon Matlack
SP Burt Hooton
SP Doug Rau
SP Ed Figeruoa
1B John Mayberry
SS Rick Burleson (frequent injuries)
3B Butch Hobson
LF Larry Hisle
2B Rennie Stennett
2B Dave Cash
2B Bump Wills
CF Mickey Rivers
RP Hal Hrabosky
RP Rawley Eastwick
RP Mark Littell
RP Jim Kern


1960s Star - 1970s Flameout:

SP Dean Chance
SP Sam McDowell
SP Denny McLain
SP Joe Sparma
1B Joe Pepitone
1B Wes Parker
SP Jim Merritt
SP Dave Boswell
SP Chuck Dobson
3B Jim Ray Hart

[willshad]

Back to the orginal posting; what you are describing is not unusual. 1990 is just a year like any other. Its not a stamp to change baseball eras. With all the players in MLB, it stands to reason that the decade marks a change to seveal players careers. In fact, you can pick any year and call it a water mark. Many of the players you mentioned were old, had injuries, or simply had short careers. Just to demonstrate, chose 1980 and 1970 as reference:

1970s Star - 1980s Flameout:

CF Fred Lynn (because of frequest injuries)
CF Ruppert Jones
CF Ron LeFlore (probably age)
CF Cesar Cedano
RF Sixto Lezcano
DH Mitchel Page
SS Garry Templeton (He seemed to lose his exceptional offense in the 1980s)
SS Roy Smalley
SP Frank Tannana (Had to reinvent himel)
SP J.R. Richard (stroke)
SP Vida Blue (drugs)
RF Ellis Valentine (drugs)
SP Randy Jones
SP Dennis Eckersley (As a SP)
SP Dave Goltz
SP Jon Matlack
SP Burt Hooton
SP Doug Rau
SP Ed Figeruoa
1B John Mayberry
SS Rick Burleson (frequent injuries)
3B Butch Hobson
LF Larry Hisle
2B Rennie Stennett
2B Dave Cash
2B Bump Wills
CF Mickey Rivers
RP Hal Hrabosky
RP Rawley Eastwick
RP Mark Littell
RP Jim Kern


1960s Star - 1970s Flameout:

SP Dean Chance
SP Sam McDowell
SP Denny McLain
SP Joe Sparma
1B Joe Pepitone
1B Wes Parker
SP Jim Merritt
SP Dave Boswell
SP Chuck Dobson
3B Jim Ray Hart


i dont know that any of these guys (besides maybe Mcclain and Lynn) were ever on a track for the hall of fame...they were merely good players. Just seemed like the 80s stars in general were 'superstars' for a few years, then ended up disappointing.

[Ubiquitous]

You could throw in Tony Conigliaro, Dick Allen, Mel Stottlemyre, and Davey Johnson.

[stejay]

I think Gooden and Strawberry may find themselves unlucky, as they were amazing players in their day. You never know though, they may still make the hall, as players, or even managers, you never know.

[Brad Harris]

Well, over the next several BBWAA elections, it's obvious that Jim Rice, Andre Dawson, Bert Blyleven and Rickey Henderson, all of whom had a plethora of good seasons in the 1980s, will be elected, raising the total of 80's players with a plaque.

Ten years from now, we'll probably be bemoaning the lack of "A-" and "B+" grade stars from the 1990s in the Hall.

[HDH]

My point in posting the sheer number of players is to demonstrate that "it happens". The players that appeared to be HOF bound in 1980, IMO, were Vida Blue, Frank Tanana, JR Richard, Garry Templeton, and possibly Fred Lynn and Randy Jones. In 1970, I would've bet on Sam McDowell and Denny McLain.

You can always expect speed guys to decline: Tim Raines, Ron LeFlore, Mickey Rivers, Keny Loften, Vince Coleman, and even Rickey Henderson.

There is one player that I''ve always been curious about is Ruben Sierra. He seemed to be a superstar one year, out of baseball the next. I'm sure we can put a player every decde in the same category as another.

Substance Abuse: Sam McDowell - Vida Blue - Dwight Gooden

Mystery: Jim Ray Hart/Jim Fregosi- Garry Templeton - Ruben Sierra

Injury: Tony Oliva - Fred Lynn - Don Mattingly

Health: Tony Coniglaro - JR Richard - Eric Davis

[Chickazoola]

My point in posting the sheer number of players is to demonstrate that "it happens". The players that appeared to be HOF bound in 1980, IMO, were Vida Blue, Frank Tanana, JR Richard, Garry Templeton, and possibly Fred Lynn and Randy Jones. In 1970, I would've bet on Sam McDowell and Denny McLain.

You can always expect speed guys to decline: Tim Raines, Ron LeFlore, Mickey Rivers, Keny Loften, Vince Coleman, and even Rickey Henderson.

There is one player that I''ve always been curious about is Ruben Sierra. He seemed to be a superstar one year, out of baseball the next. I'm sure we can put a player every decde in the same category as another.

Substance Abuse: Sam McDowell - Vida Blue - Dwight Gooden

Mystery: Jim Ray Hart/Jim Fregosi- Garry Templeton - Ruben Sierra

Injury: Tony Oliva - Fred Lynn - Don Mattingly

Health: Tony Coniglaro - JR Richard - Eric Davis

Well Fregosi became an injury magnet almost as soon as the Nolan Ryan trade happened. Garry Templeton was generally regarded as a headcase with a poor work ethic and bad attitude, and was rumored to have a drug problem.