Andre Dawson elected to HOF

[FirstTimer]

Thoughts? Feelings?

 

[Senser81]

Hawk was a very good all-around player until his knees were shot, and even when he lost his speed he was still a productive player. I think he's deserving. I think Blyleven is also deserving, but it appears that now he will get in within the next couple years. Barry Larkin IMO should also get in, as should Robbie Alomar (even though he was a punk).

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Hawk was a very good all-around player until his knees were shot, and even when he lost his speed he was still a productive player. I think he's deserving. I think Blyleven is also deserving, but it appears that now he will get in within the next couple years. Barry Larkin IMO should also get in, as should Robbie Alomar (even though he was a punk).

Alomar & Blyleven willl get in.

Larkin only got 50%, so he probably wont ever make it, which is an absolute joke.

 

[dell71]

I call Hawk's induction the first sign of the Jim Rice effect. Now that Rice is in, a number of players with similar stats suddenly have stronger cases. If Dawson is in, why not Dale Murphy? Dave Parker? Fred McGriff? Andres Galarraga?

I'd put those guys and Dawson on that really really good but not quite all time great and not vote for him, if I had a vote. But since Rice is in, and Dawkins numbers across the board were comparable to Rice's, often better and he was a much better defensive player, its hard to keep him out.

On the other hand, how Barry Larkin and especially Roberto Alomar didn't get in today blows my mind. We're talking two guys who are certainly among the top 10 and arguably top 5 ever to play their positions. Hell, in Alomar's case he might be the best ever. Understanding that the BBWAA is filled with grudge-holders and moral high-grounders it wouldn't shock me to find out their extreme distaste for that spitting incident is what kept him out.

 

[Senser81]

I call Hawk's induction the first sign of the Jim Rice effect. Now that Rice is in, a number of players with similar stats suddenly have stronger cases. If Dawson is in, why not Dale Murphy? Dave Parker? Fred McGriff? Andres Galarraga?

I'd put those guys and Dawson on that really really good but not quite all time great and not vote for him, if I had a vote. But since Rice is in, and Dawkins numbers across the board were comparable to Rice's, often better and he was a much better defensive player, its hard to keep him out.

I think you're comparisons are bad. For a time Jim Rice was the most feared hitter in baseball, but he was a bad fielder. Dawson was a terrific fielder. To only compare their batting stats doesn't see the big picture. It would be like comparing a 2nd baseman's stats to a 1st baseman's stats and ignoring the fact that the 2nd baseman also has to be good enough to field his position.

Murphy doesn't have Dawson's sustained production. He was a great all-around player, though.

Parker was about as bad as Rice in the field, and wasn't nearly as consistent as Dawson. He was a very weird player with a weird career.

McGriff and Galarraga were 1st basemen.

 

[dell71]

I admit that Dawson was a more complete player (don't know if that was clear from my o.p. or not). My point was not to say that Rice or Dawson is better. It's just that for years, many of these guys were considered just on the outside looking in as far as HOF status is concerned and had similar career numbers. I'm simply saying that once one of them got in, Rice in this case, it made it a little easier for the others. Remember, Dawson has been on the ballot for quite awhile also and year after year, I believe he received fewer votes than Rice. Again, I believe Dawson to be the better player but in terms of HOF status, Rice's induction certainly helped his cause.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

http://www.virtualsportsnet.com/2010/01/07/hall-of-fame-try-just-very-good/

My take on Dawson being inducted

I'll tell you what, why dont we just take the top 10% or 15% (you can pick the number) of hitters on the all time OBP list, then pair those guys down using your unreliable, fake contrived fielding geek stats (making sure they are better than the replacement player!), and just put those guys in the Hall. Oh! Better still, each player must also have a career OBP+ of at least, say, 140.

Dawson is the perfect example of why geek stats can fail you. First of all, fielding stats, even the geek ones, are always to be taken with a grain of salt. Stat geeks dont want to hear it, but you need the eyeball test. You can use your geek stats as a guide, but i'm sorry, any stat that concludes that Andre Dawson, especially pre injury, was mearly slightly above average defensively is flawed.

Secondly, Dawson was a tremendous offensive weapon, and a dominant hitter. With the bad knees. Before the bad knees, he was on his way to being ultra elite, a REAL 5-tool stud, not like today where they crown anyone who steals a base and hits a few homers with the label.

I'm an avid Bill James reader and appreciate sabermetrics more than most, but everytime I read something you wrote, you come off as one of these stat geeks who gets so wrapped up in geek stats, that you forget to watch the games.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I think you're comparisons are bad. For a time Jim Rice was the most feared hitter in baseball, but he was a bad fielder. Dawson was a terrific fielder. To only compare their batting stats doesn't see the big picture. It would be like comparing a 2nd baseman's stats to a 1st baseman's stats and ignoring the fact that the 2nd baseman also has to be good enough to field his position.

Murphy doesn't have Dawson's sustained production. He was a great all-around player, though.

Parker was about as bad as Rice in the field, and wasn't nearly as consistent as Dawson. He was a very weird player with a weird career.

McGriff and Galarraga were 1st basemen.

Once Parker gained weight, he had trouble running down fly balls. But even as an aging, fat, slow old man, he had an absolute cannon for an arm, and prevented alot of baserunners from advancing simply on reputation. For that alone, he wasnt the useless hack that Rice was.

 

[Lanteri]

Well-deserved IMO. Not much more to say on it.

And it is ridiculous about Alomar and Larkin.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

hey w2b, you still have that old ass grey larkin jersey you used to wear?

Dosen't fit. I got that in 1992. Almost 20 years ago. Scary.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

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:

Dawson was only the 2nd player in MLB history to hit 400+ HRs, steal 300+ bases, and drive 1500+ runs in a career (Willie Mays was the first and Barry Bonds has since joined the club). Factor in that he was an 8 time all star, rookie of the year, league MVP, 8 gold gloves, 4 silver bats, played the first 10 years of his career in a pitchers paradise, and had a cannon arm and there's no way you can argue he doesn't deserve it. He was a true 5 tool baseball player - no flaws in his game.

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

 

[Senser81]

http://www.virtualsportsnet.com/2010/01/07/hall-of-fame-try-just-very-good/

My take on Dawson being inducted

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.

 

[Senser81]

You spend alot of time worrying about what he didnt do, yet seem to ignore what he did do.

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.

 

[dell71]

I'm starting to come over to the dark side. I can go either way on Dawson being in or out, a little embarassing considering I really did get to watch him play. Still doesn't change my opinion that Rice's induction certainly helped.

Oh and Lefty, during the vast majority of his career, if a guy could hit 25+ homers, he was absolutely a major power threat. Think of this way, 5 times he finished in the top 10 in HRs with 25 or fewer. He played in a much more pitcher-friendly era, can't hold that against him.

 

[FedEx227]

I'm starting to come over to the dark side. I can go either way on Dawson being in or out, a little embarassing considering I really did get to watch him play. Still doesn't change my opinion that Rice's induction certainly helped.

Oh and Lefty, during the vast majority of his career, if a guy could hit 25+ homers, he was absolutely a major power threat. Think of this way, 5 times he finished in the top 10 in HRs with 25 or fewer. He played in a much more pitcher-friendly era, can't hold that against him.

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.

 

[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]

:tiptoe:

 

[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.