Andre Dawson elected to HOF

[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):

Category|Dawson|Beltran
Batting Avg|.281|.283
League Avg|.257|.266
Top 10 BA|3|0
Top 10 Hits|5|2
Avg HR|28|27
Top 10 HR (Avg HR champ)|5 (38)|2 (51)
Avg RBI|99|107
Top 10 RBI (Avg RBI champ)|5 (120)|3 (146)
Top 10 Extra-Base Hits|6|3
Avg Total Bases|308|310
Top 10 TB|7|2
Avg SB|27|30
Top 10 SB|3|5
Top 10 SLG|6|1|
Top 10 OBP|0|0
Top 10 OPS|4|1
Top 10 OPS+|3|1
Top 10 PWR-SPD#|8|8
Rookie of the Year|1|1
MVP|1|0
Top 10 MVP Voting|4|2
Gold Gloves|7|3
All-Star Games|4|5
Silver Slugger Awards|4|2

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.....



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.

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?

 

[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.