Andre Dawson elected to HOF

[FedEx227]

I'm actually liking the amount of solid baseball talk we've had in this thread wish we saw this more around VSN.

[FedEx227]

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

Well that's why Dell's post was pretty solid (also him not succoming to useless nerd jokes is another plus) because I think in two ways Dawson playing for so long HELPED his counting stat numbers but really hurt his averages as he put up some real stinker years to round out his career. That's why I don't believe in 100% eliminating counting stats (something has to be said for hitting milestones and for longevity) and also why I'm still not sure what I think with Dawson.

[Warner2BruceTD]

I'm actually liking the amount of solid baseball talk we've had in this thread wish we saw this more around VSN.

Only thread in the history of the interweb with references to Corey Patterson, Bubbles Hargrove , Felix Pie, Tony Perez, and Frank "Home Run" Baker.

[FedEx227]

Exactly. I'm not saying to completely disregard everything Dawson did in his career in favor of a few statistics that show he wasn't dominating. Like I said in the article: Dawson's longevity and career milestones are to be commended, but they weren't gotten by being a DOMINATING force in his era. He was a damn good baseball player, but I just don't think the counting-stat milestones and longevity are enough to overlook the simple fact that he wasn't a dominant force in other areas (like OPS+ and OBP and the like).

But instead of seeing the real meaning behind what I was saying, people immediately thought I was bashing Dawson and saying he wasn't much of anything, and then decided to harp on nerd and stat jokes because...well, I don't know. Just to be sure: everyone knows that I said while I don't think Dawson belongs in the HOF, I do believe he would belong in the Hall of VERY GOOD, right? Or did you just see an acronym with a number attached and freak out?

I think it also comes with a sense of Lefty probably thinking the Hall of Fame should be for the top-tier guys, when that's just not the case anymore. Dawson is a hell of a player, but as Dell alluded to earlier without the induction of Rice and a few other in-between guys Dawson likely never sees the Hall, whether that's right or not.

This isn't a new trend though there are plenty of guys from "back in the day" that have absolutely no reason to be in the Hall outside of the fact they played for big franchises and were buddy-buddy with the writers.

[Warner2BruceTD]

I'd like to know who the DOMINATING forces of the Dawson era were in Lefty's opinion.

To me, the easiest way to determine a HOF player is if he dominated his position during his era. That's why guys like Alomar and Larkin should be locks. Same goes for the laundry list of guys he rips at the enf of the Dawson piece. I'm honestly curious who makes this cut.

[Senser81]

But instead of seeing the real meaning behind what I was saying, people immediately thought I was bashing Dawson and saying he wasn't much of anything, and then decided to harp on nerd and stat jokes because...well, I don't know.

This shit again? You wrote an entire article bashing Dawson. You disregarded his stolen bases because he never led the league in that category. You focused on a few specific areas in which Dawson wasn't strong and ignored everything else. You failed to recognize that "counting stats" are usually what gets a player into the baseball HOF. Your "argument" would have been laughed at even if it were a junior high debate team meet.

What is the "real meaning" behind what you are saying? You obviously think that every player from the late-70's, early-80's should not be in the HOF. Dawson, Carter, Murray, Sandberg...all these guys were the best at their positions and great all-around players. You rip on Bruce Sutter for not being "dominant".

You have no concept of historical context. That is why your "argument" sucks.

[Senser81]

All you want to do is troll and be viewed as an e-hard-ass by a few other morons on this board

FYI, I want to be viewed as an e-hard-ass by everyone on this board...not just people like you.

[Warner2BruceTD]

I'd like to know who the DOMINATING forces of the Dawson era were in Lefty's opinion.

To me, the easiest way to determine a HOF player is if he dominated his position during his era. That's why guys like Alomar and Larkin should be locks. Same goes for the laundry list of guys he rips at the enf of the Dawson piece. I'm honestly curious who makes this cut.

I'm gonna quote myself here, because it looks like Lefty took his ball and went home.

I'm thinking the reason Lefty dosent see many (any?) of the 76-92 guys as HOF caliber has everything to do with age. That's a tough era to wrap your head around if your only frame of reference is the steroid era. To say dominant players like Sandberg & Murray were mearly very good is off base.

As for Dawson, he came up as a slick fielding gap hitter with HR pop, and he was a legit SB threat as well. He was a guy who did it all.

Twelve knee surgeries later, he moved to RF, changed his swing, and hit a bunch of HR's in Chicago.

He ended up with a ROY, MVP, and a bunch of GG's and SS's. He was a grey ink mainstay for 16 years and a black ink guy for 6 or 7 at his peak.

[Senser81]

I'm gonna quote myself here, because it looks like Lefty took his ball and went home.

I'm thinking the reason Lefty dosent see many (any?) of the 76-92 guys as HOF caliber has everything to do with age. That's a tough era to wrap your head around if your only frame of reference is the steroid era. To say dominant players like Sandberg & Murray were mearly very good is off base.

Agree on both points. One, Lefty took his ball and went home. Two, it APPEARS that Lefty's argument is that Dawson wasn't dominant enough to be enshrined in the HOF, yet he cannot say who was/is dominant enough from that era to be enshrined into the HOF. I remember guys like Mattingly, Gooden, and Dale Murphy being dominant, but I don't think they are HOF-worthy.

[dell71]

Agree on both points. One, Lefty took his ball and went home. Two, it APPEARS that Lefty's argument is that Dawson wasn't dominant enough to be enshrined in the HOF, yet he cannot say who was/is dominant enough from that era to be enshrined into the HOF. I remember guys like Mattingly, Gooden, and Dale Murphy being dominant, but I don't think they are HOF-worthy.

Sigh...if only Mattingly didn't have back problems, we're talking a top 10 all time first basemen...and a HOF pitcher if Doc Gooden didn't have coke and a smile.

[jeffx]

Sigh...if only Mattingly didn't have back problems, we're talking a top 10 all time first basemen...and a HOF pitcher if Doc Gooden didn't have coke and a smile.

Plenty of Yankee fans still think Mattingly belongs in the HOF despite his short career. You hear these cats all the time on WFAN. Their argument is if Puckett's in the HOF, Donnie Baseball should get in too.

[Senser81]

Plenty of Yankee fans still think Mattingly belongs in the HOF despite his short career. You hear these cats all the time on WFAN. Their argument is if Puckett's in the HOF, Donnie Baseball should get in too.

I would guess that if Mattingly played well in 2 World Series like Puckett did, he'd be in the HOF.

[FedEx227]

Puckett was absolutely helped out by having some great World Series.

Mattingly is a guy that I'm always taken aback when I forget he isn't in the Hall, he's a hard case because while he didn't have longevity, he played at a high level throughout his career. So it's kind of that tough spot to be in.

Average wise he was great: .307/.358/.471, 127 OPS+, 20 HR, 100 RBI, good defense. Longevity-wise and milestone wise he never really hit anything. 200 homers, 2,000+ hits...

[Warner2BruceTD]

I'm calling your show and demanding answers from Lefty.

[Senser81]

I'm calling your show and demanding answers from Lefty.

Good luck, I think they cancelled the show.