Hall of Fame Blind Resume #1

[FedEx227]

That's why I said he was ahead of his time. He'd absolutely be appreciate in today's MLB or the MLB of the late 90s early 2000s but back then? Forget it.

I would like him in, because it would mean another potential White Sox player in the Hall but it's hard to make a huge justification that he SHOULD be in. You can use the standard "Well you let Andre Dawson in" argument but it's still going to be hard to sell Allen to a number of writers who look at poor defense, surly attitude and smoking in a baseball card. That follows him way more than gaudy HR totals, OBP and OPS+ numbers. Personally, I wouldn't just because I don't think he did quite enough to warrant getting in, but using the standards set you could totally justify putting him in.

 

[FirstTimer]

I would like him in, because it would mean another potential White Sox player in the Hall but it's hard to make a huge justification that he SHOULD be in. You can use the standard "Well you let Andre Dawson in" argument but it's still going to be hard to sell Allen to a number of writers who look at poor defense, surly attitude and smoking in a baseball card. That follows him way more than gaudy HR totals, OBP and OPS+ numbers. Personally, I wouldn't just because I don't think he did quite enough to warrant getting in, but using the standards set you could totally justify putting him in.

:joker:

Not seeing the connection here with Dick Allen.

Dawsom IMO was a huge snub and should have been in well before a guy like Rice.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Allen oWAR: 71.8
Jim Rice: 39.2

Sorry, not a huge fan of "if this guy is in this guy should be in" arguments, but I like to take every opportunity to bang on Rice.

And Rice wasn't exactly Jim Edmonds, bumbling around LF in Fenway.

 

[FedEx227]

The connection is whether you want to admit or not letting Dawson and Rice in opened flood gates for borderline guys to get in.

I know tons of people (Cubs fans at the front of the pack) justify Dawson, which is fine but you have to understand that if he's in, there's justification for a LOT of other guys.

 

[FedEx227]

I do agree that Rice is a way worse offense, though.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

The connection is whether you want to admit or not letting Dawson and Rice in opened flood gates for borderline guys to get in.

I know tons of people (Cubs fans at the front of the pack) justify Dawson, which is fine but you have to understand that if he's in, there's justification for a LOT of other guys.

The thing is, while as you know I favor Dawson for the Hall of Fame, i'm far more impressed by his Expos resume, when he was arguably the most well rounded player in the NL, a true five tool stud who excelled at everything and dominated for about 6 years.

 

[FedEx227]

Allen oWAR: 71.8
Jim Rice: 39.2

Sorry, not a huge fan of "if this guy is in this guy should be in" arguments, but I like to take every opportunity to bang on Rice.

You almost have to in a lot of cases though. Anytime you're using a statistically argument to let someone out, you have to compare him to other guys that are in statistically.

If you want to say I didn't vote Dick Allen in because he was a surly black dude with sideburns who bitched a lot, then say that, but when people use anything numbers related for exclusion, you have to point to guys like Rice and wonder statistically why one is in and one is out.

 

[FedEx227]

The thing is, while as you know I favor Dawson for the Hall of Fame, i'm far more impressed by his Expos resume, when he was arguably the most well rounded player in the NL, a true five tool stud who excelled at everything and dominated for about 6 years.

:yawn:

I'm also waiting for the "Well his knees were shot" argument too.

And again, I'm fine with Dawson in the Hall, I really am... just as long as you accept a lot of other borderline guys too. I just want HOF to go with some stance, either let people who are statistically deserving in or really limit it to only the finest. This pick and chose every year based off how old the guy is, how close he is to getting off the ballot, how nice he was to the media, if he has a disease, if he's already died, if he said something in the media is silly.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

You almost have to in a lot of cases though. Anytime you're using a statistically argument to let someone out, you have to compare him to other guys that are in statistically.

If you want to say I didn't vote Dick Allen in because he was a surly black dude with sideburns who bitched a lot, then say that, but when people use anything numbers related for exclusion, you have to point to guys like Rice and wonder statistically why one is in and one is out.

I understand this mindset, but I prefer to write off the bad inclusions as simply being bad inclusions. I hate lowering the bar everytime a Pee Wee Reese gets in.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

:yawn:

I'm also waiting for the "Well his knees were shot" argument too.

And again, I'm fine with Dawson in the Hall, I really am... just as long as you accept a lot of other borderline guys too.

His knees were shot with the Cubs, who despite their fanbase pushing the hardest for him, never even got to see the true, peak Dawson!

 

[FedEx227]

Thank you!

 

[FirstTimer]

The connection is whether you want to admit or not letting Dawson and Rice in opened flood gates for borderline guys to get in.

I know tons of people (Cubs fans at the front of the pack) justify Dawson, which is fine but you have to understand that if he's in, there's justification for a LOT of other guys.

:yawn:

I'm also waiting for the "Well his knees were shot" argument too.

And again, I'm fine with Dawson in the Hall, I really am... just as long as you accept a lot of other borderline guys too. I just want HOF to go with some stance, either let people who are statistically deserving in or really limit it to only the finest. This pick and chose every year based off how old the guy is, how close he is to getting off the ballot, how nice he was to the media, if he has a disease, if he's already died, if he said something in the media is silly.

Dawson to me is in no way a borderline candidate. Him waiting so long for the HOF was retarded in my estimation.

 

[NAHSTE]

Can we just remove Rice from the HOF? Solves everything.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

TRUMOIL!

THIS MAN HAS SIDEBURNS!

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Like I said during the blind study...I think he is a borderline guy. Offensive numbers are very good. Moreso today than yesteryear, as mentioned. Awful in the field, but whatever.

He's the "guy" in Philadelphia lore that basically connects Jimmie Foxx and Mike Schmidt in baseball. Telling the story of the game, his negative pub probably keeps him out. Whatever.

 

[nflman2033]

Id have voted yes, looking at those number relative to the era he played.

 

[Senser81]

He's the "guy" in Philadelphia lore that basically connects Jimmie Foxx and Mike Schmidt in baseball.

No Richie Ashburn?

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

No Richie Ashburn?

Touche.