Andre Dawson elected to HOF

[FirstTimer]

From 1979-1983, Dawson was clearly one of the best players in the NL. He also won the ROY in 1977, and the MVP in 1987. He had a 16 year stretch of years with OPS+ over 100.

Before you hand out backhanded compliments concerning his "counting numbers", consider that he never played 160 games, and only topped 150 six times.

Dawson was a rare power hitter who didnt strike out very often (only topping 100 three times, with several seasons of 600+ PA's with less than 100 K's), and hardly ever hit into double plays (career high of 18, as an old man with Boston late in his career).

Pre knee trouble, in his prime, he was good for 25 HR's, 35 SB's, .300, and a .870 OPS., and genuine GG play in CF ('79-'83).

Even after the knee problems (something that led to a staggering 12 knee surgeries during his career), he was still well above average as a hitter, and played a very competent RF.

During seasons when he managed to play 150+ games, he racked up the black ink you are so enamored with...9 out of his 11 league leading efforts came in seasons of 150+ games.

Looking at the grey ink (top tens), he scores well into the typical HOF range. Basically, he was a guy who always produced when he played, at an elite level pre knee trouble, and at a very high level for about 15 years all together. When he managed to play full seasons, he dominated.

You spend alot of time worrying about what he didnt do, yet seem to ignore what he did do. He was a pretty remarkable player who did everything well, dominated when he was healthy, and lacked any real deficiancies, even after bad knees took away much of his natural ability.

Here's a guy who watched him play. The bolded part should be enough for anyone on the fence:




What's not to like? He moved to RF when he couldnt run anymore? He didnt lead the league in triples? C'mon.

Exactly. It's boggles my mind that he can write an article and say Dawson never lead the league in this and that so he obviously wasn't elite but if you looked at certain stats Dawson was consistantly in the top 10....and top 5. Lefty makes it seem as though unless you win 6 triple crowns during your career you shouldn't be in the HOF.

This basically sums up the article. I love Lefty's idea that Dawson 300+ stolen bases are meaningless because he never led the league in stolen bases. I'm sure he also thinks that since Dave Winfield never led the league in hits, we should ignore his 3100+ hits.

LULZ. Very true.

A horrible article.

First, thanks for the clarification that Dawson wasn't a bad fielder.

Second, your "argument" is baseless. You have no evidence to back up what you say. For instance, your comment that Dawson has 438 HRs is worthless. What is the reader supposed to think..."Oh, he has only 438 HRs, he shouldn't be in the HOF"? How does that compare to other players from Dawson's era? How does that compare to other CFers?

You merely say that Dawson was overrated and never really an elite player...I don't buy it. Relative to his peers, Dawson was an elite player. If you are saying that Dawson is undeserving of the HOF, then you have to say which deserving player(s) from Dawson's era that he's keeping out of Cooperstown.

Your final comment of listing the "undeserving" players is completely asinine. That you can call Bruce Sutter "above-average" is absurd....Sutter was perhaps the best relief pitcher when he was healthy. His issue wasn't his "eliteness" it was his longevity. Jesus Christ, have you ever read anything about baseball? Nice swipes at Ryne Sandberg (best 2B of the 80's), Gary Carter (best C of the 80's) and Eddie Murray (best 1B of the 80's). I'm sure those guys had low UZI ratings or something.

Agreed.

[Senser81]

That's where OPS+ comes in though as it will regulate to a league level/league averages on a given year. He had some years where he was well above league average and clearly an elite player in baseball. 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1987, 1988, 1990 he had an OPS+ above 130, which is very good. Unfortunately for him, there were far too many years where he was just average or slightly above average.

"Oh my God! Is that bad?"

[FedEx227]

[Senser81]

I listed his total number of HR's along with his all-time rank and listed his career total in doubles in the same manner (nummber, all-time rank) in a sentence where I said that his successes (that's good, right?) in the counting-stats department was more of a product of the longevity of his career rather than any dominating skill in any one area.

No shit. Successes in career statistical totals ARE the product of longevity....how could they be viewed any other way? I guess I don't understand the point of you mentioning this. Its like someone saying Cy Young is the winningest pitcher of all time, but he pitched for a long time. Yeah....and?

I didn't focus on HR's because, as I said before (in the article and three times here), much of Dawson's counting stat gaudiness comes from playing 21 seasons in the MLB (a meritorious fact in its own right, something that I SAID IN THE ARTICLE) and not necessarily dominating his peers.

Dawson wasn't Babe Ruth or Barry Bonds, but he was pretty dominant among his peers. He went to all-star games, won gold gloves, etc. which are all relative to your peers. He also won 4 silver slugger awards, which is impressive for an OF. Compared to his contemporaries, Winfield won 5, Rice won 2, Rickey Henderson won 3.

I look at OPS+ to see how he compared to other hitters of his era, and the overall outlook is not very good for HOF status (though it still is good, very good in fact, a point that I have repeated over and over). Yes, Dawson had a few seasons where he was in the upper-echelon of the league in patience and power at the plate (that's what OPS is when you get down to it), but he only appeared in the top-10 of the league in that category 3 times, which is a little strange for someone that was such a potent offensive weapon as you say.

I have Dawson down for 6 top 10 OPS seasons. You seem to be mixing up your OPS+ (which is a subjectively adjusted stat) and your OPS. I see what you are saying, but how significant is adjusted OPS to HOF worthiness? What is a typical adjusted OPS for a HOFer?

Not true. I have never once said that Andre Dawson is overrated. I merely said that while he was very good for his time (I would put him into that Hall of Very Good, remember), he wasn't a dominating offensive or defensive force worthy of the Hall of Fame.

Come on, man! You didn't "merely" say anything...you wrote a very long article downgrading every phase of Dawson's game. You say he's not HOF material. You say he wasn't even a league-beater, much less a world-beater. You downgrade his stolen base total because he never led the league. You downgrade his 8 GGs by claiming he was never really the best defensively.

At least stand up for your beliefs. Don't backtrack now.

Not according to OPS+ or OBP or SLG individually. Where is this phantom metric that shows Dawson to be some elite player in his time? And don't come back with "well look at his HR and RBI totals". We've covered the counting-stat problem (though I'm not sure you comprehend it), show me a rate stat that shows Dawson as an elite player among his peers, and show me that he maintained the elite status for a good portion of his career.

As others have said, you choose to narrow your scope on Dawson when it suits you. The baseball HOF isn't really about "rate stats". Its about career totals. Look at who gets enshrined. Look at the statistical landmarks...they aren't OPS+ of 145 or even batting average of .300....they are things like 3000 hits or 500 HRs or 300 Wins. What I find funny is that you show such disdain for these "counting stats", yet its these counting stats that usually are the criteria for the HOF.

Dawson doesn't have good rate stats, but thats not really where his value was. Its like saying Steve Largent shouldn't be in the HOF because he didn't average 20 yards per reception. Dawson did have a pretty good career slugging percentage (.482), which is better than guys like Clemente, Puckett, Eddie Murray, Winfield, who are from that era.

This makes no sense. Well, it does, it's just dumb. It's akin to saying "well if you don't have a better idea then shut it." Which we all know is not a sound way to argue.

So....the HOF isn't relative? That makes no sense. If you think a guy isn't worthy for the HOF, then you have to give names of the people who are worthy yet who aren't in the HOF. Otherwise, how can you say that Dawson isn't HOF worthy? By what criteria/comparison should he be kept out of Cooperstown.

Its like when the Pro Bowl teams come out, and everyone has 10-15 players who they think were snubbed....well, who would the snubs replace on the team? Otherwise, you have no point.

[Senser81]

I.........have no idea what this means.

You live in the Chicago area and you DON'T remember Corey Patterson?

Its amazing how every new thing we find out about you points to the fact that you've probably never seen a baseball game in your life.

[FedEx227]

Felix Pie > Corey Patterson

[Warner2BruceTD]

Stats like OPS+ are very useful when you're talking about guys like Nap Lajoie or Frank "Home Run" Baker. I don't need a made up stat to tell me what value Andre Dawson's 25 HR's had in 1983.

I also find it amusing that "counting stats" are frowned upon, yet contrived stats gathered partly with subjective formulas carry higher weight. At least the counting stats are what they are. Bill James arrives at his batter wins differently than Pete Palmer arrives at his formulas. A HR is a HR.

[FedEx227]

Stats like OPS+ are very useful when you're talking about guys like Nap Lajoie or Frank "Home Run" Baker. I don't need a made up stat to tell me what value Andre Dawson's 25 HR's had in 1983.

They are useful in all instances. It just shows how the player was compared to his contemporaries. I don't think there needs to be a time stamp on that. They are most important in the 90s when 40-50 home runs were no longer something special, thus OPS+ can show you who truly stood out.

Made up stat? You do realize they use stuff that happens on the field to get the stat? It's not any more "made up" than batting average is...



I understand your point that HR, hits, etc. are easy to see, easy to point to and yes they are still used. You'll notice anytime I put a stat line in I'll always include HR/RBI, etc. I just tend to put more weight into value-relative statistics as they help you better assess someone over the scope of their career or the scope of a year.

[zack54attack]

Ron Santo Belongs in the Hall of Fame....

[zack54attack]

BTW Lefty, no offense. But I'm starting to think your "bias" side to White Sox Baseball has created a major hatred towards cubs players...


Santo, Dawson...and then you mention Ryne Sandberg at the bottom of your article? C'mon man..

[dell71]

That's where OPS+ comes in though as it will regulate to a league level/league averages on a given year. He had some years where he was well above league average and clearly an elite player in baseball. 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1987, 1988, 1990 he had an OPS+ above 130, which is very good. Unfortunately for him, there were far too many years where he was just average or slightly above average.

It was not helped out by the fact that he was not very good at OBP, frankly of the course of his career he made a LOT of outs. .300 or sub .300 OBPs in multiple years is not very good, even if he was stealing bases, getting hits, a sub .300 OBP means you're making a ton of outs thus limiting your teams chances of scoring/winning.

That's all. I haven't really made my decision on Dawson yet. I'm leaning towards no, but there are some aspects of his game that are HOF worthy. I'm still on the fence. His averages are not all that impressive (Career season averages: .279/.323/.482, 27 HR, 98 RBI, 119 OPS+), in fact it's not all that far off from Carlos Beltran right now (Beltran: .283/.360/.496, 27 HR, 107 RBI, 119 OPS+) if Beltran plays for 10 more years is he HOF worthy?

Again, I'm on the fence. Dawson is great with counting stats, he has some gaudy totals, average-wise though... I dunno.

Here's the problem with the OPS+ of Dawson vs. that of Beltran: it doesn't really account for the era the two played in. I know, I know OPS+ accounts for league averages. However, having watched baseball all my life I know that those numbers Dawson put up from the late 70s to the late 80s are much more impressive than the totals posted by Beltran today. In addition, Dawson's career averages, including OPS+, include the last 4 years of his career which basically constitutes his decline. Beltran has yet to reach his decline.

A little side by side comparison, through the first 12 years of their careers - Dawson's MVP Year of '87 was year 12, btw (all averages used are per 162g):

Now THAT's the way to see how a player ranks against his peers. You can't just throw up one guy's stats vs. another without offering any context, even one that's for the purpose of doing so like OPS+. Here, you can not only see their raw averages but how those numbers stack up against the players of their era. So while Beltran's averages, counting stats and "value-relative" stats (I included both) may be slightly higher in direct comparison to Dawson's they're not nearly as impressive because when you look at the two eras, the numbers of this one are far more inflated. In short, through the same point in their careers, Dawson was much more consistently among the top 10 in a number of categories while Beltran only makes the occasional appearance.

[Warner2BruceTD]

They are useful in all instances. It just shows how the player was compared to his contemporaries. I don't think there needs to be a time stamp on that. They are most important in the 90s when 40-50 home runs were no longer something special, thus OPS+ can show you who truly stood out.

Made up stat? You do realize they use stuff that happens on the field to get the stat? It's not any more "made up" than batting average is...



I understand your point that HR, hits, etc. are easy to see, easy to point to and yes they are still used. You'll notice anytime I put a stat line in I'll always include HR/RBI, etc. I just tend to put more weight into value-relative statistics as they help you better assess someone over the scope of their career or the scope of a year.

I understand what OPS+ is. You are missing the point i'm trying to make.

I don't need to see the OPS+ numbers to tell you Dawson was better than Gary Maddux or Eddie Milner or Milt Thompson because I saw those guys play against each other, and the numbers they put up have context to me because that era unfolded before my eyes.

Where OPS+ is particularly useful, is looking at guys from the deadball era or the 1800's or the 1950's or the Federal League or any other era you didnt witness and may not have any point of referance to.

I like the stat, but it's just a guide. You scan down the column of a particular player, and say to yourself, "Ok, Bubbles Hargrove was an above average player the majority of his career, that's what I wanted to know". It's not the be all, end all of a players worth, and i'll tell you why:

-OBP, while very important, doesnt tell the whole story. A guy who walks 50 times dosent carry the same value as a guy who hits 50 HR's. Stricly going off of OBP, they are equals.

-SLG does not offset the above. SLG is a highly suspect stat IMO. Would you rather have 200 singles, or 50 HR's? 100 singles, or 50 doubles? SLG calls it all equal. It's not.

I'm not knocking the importance of OBP, but i'm not a slave to it, either. A plyer can get on base at a .430 clip, as a slap hitter who can't run the bases. Another player can be a .330 guy, but hit lots of HR's, and have great baserunning instincts. Who would you rather have?

This is why you can't be a slave to OBP or OPS+ as a black/white "the 143 guy had a better year than the 124 guy". He probably did, but baseball dosent really work that way, no matter what the slide rule dorks at Baseball Prospectus tell you.

BUT HERE IS THE KICKER...

Andre Dawson had 16 consecutive years of 100+ OPS+, meaning he was better than the average hitter for almost TWO DECADES. 6 or 7 or 8 (subjective) of those years he was ELITE, particularly from about 1978 to 1983, when you could argue he was the most complete player in his league.

So even by the dork stat standard, he measures up very well against his peers...but then again, some people think those peers werent any good either (oh, I dont know, lets say Winfield, Rice, Sandberg, Perez, Carter...), so I dont know what to tell you.

[Warner2BruceTD]

BTW Lefty, no offense. But I'm starting to think your "bias" side to White Sox Baseball has created a major hatred towards cubs players...


Santo, Dawson...and then you mention Ryne Sandberg at the bottom of your article? C'mon man..

Ron Kittle & Ivan Calderon, HOF bound! Go SOX!

Think i'm kidding? The career OPS+ of Kittle, Calderon, and Andre Dawson are (in no particular order) 119, 113, & 110.

But hey, let's keep basing arguments on that stat.

[Warner2BruceTD]

No not at all, actually. I hate everybody equally. Besides, Andre Dawson played more seasons in Montreal than he did for the Cubs so.....



[B]Yeah. I can't possibly count the number of times I've advocated Kittle and Calderon being in the Hall when talking about Andre Dawson's selection. [b]

C'mon guy, did you really miss the point?

[Warner2BruceTD]

No, I didn't. It's just that the point was so meatballish that I decided not to respond to it.

So you have no issue with using a stat that says Dawson was only 6% better than Calderon as one of your prime metrics?