Why No Hawk in the Hall?
by Telling it how it is on Jan 11, 2009 1:31 PM CST
113 comments
What is it that makes up a Hall of Famer? Is it having 500 HR’s or 3000 hits? I know these are the alleged magic numbers, but shouldn’t a Hall of Famer be a man that has played 20+ seasons, always leaving it all on the field, through injuries, and on poor teams, but still playing the way the game was intended? Ryne Sandberg, during his Hall of Fame induction, spoke about former players and teammates he respected and looked up to for playing the game the right way. Andre Dawson was very high on his list of teammates. He said, “No player in baseball history worked harder, suffered more, or did it better than Andre Dawson.” It takes some kind of player to go into a new season with a new team and not worry about a dollar sign; something Dawson did in 1987, his first season with the Chicago Cubs, signing a blank contract allowing the team to fill in the amount fit. The Cubs somewhat refused and signed him to a $650,000 contract; not exactly a term fit for a 5-time Gold Glover and 3-time All Star with over 200 HR’s and 200 stolen bases.
His 1987 season would be one of, if not his best ever; batting 287 with 49 HR’s and 137 RBI’s on his way to winning MVP honors while on a less than stellar team that finished 76-85. This MVP award was just one of Dawson’s many accolades. He also finished second in MVP voting in 1981 and 1983. He had also won the NL Rookie of the Year award in 1977, was voted to eight all-star games, won eight Gold Gloves, and four Silver Slugger awards. He is one of only six players in MLB history to hit 300 HR’s and steal 300 bases. He was not just a great offensive player. Dawson, in a little less than 2500 games, had less than 100 errors and recorded over 5000 putouts; awesome stats for this rocket-armed outfielder. Dawson, in 21 seasons, batted 279, with 438 HR’s, 1591 RBI’s, 314 stolen bases, and 2774 hits. Do I need to say anything more? Some people say the magic hall numbers are 500 HR’s and/or 3000 hits. Dawson was only 62 HR’s short of 500. There is only one other player with more homeruns that is eligible but is not in the Hall, David Kingman. To use the hits if not the home run numbers, all players ahead of his 2774 that are eligible are in. There are many great Hall of Famers with fewer hits, such as Lou Gehrig, Ted Williams, Jimmie Foxx, and Reggie Jackson, to mention a few. To add to his already more-than-impressive Hall numbers, Dawson is one of only three players ever to hit over 400 homeruns and steal over 300 bases. The other two are Willie Mays, already an outstanding Hall of Famer, and Barry Bonds, the current homerun record holder and seven-time NL MVP . So is it really that hard of a vote? Not at all. To leave out a great player, let alone a great man, would be a loss to the fans, the game, and a great person. So in the upcoming vote, let’s get it right…
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.
1 recs |
113 comments
Email
Print
Comments
You make a great case and I agree with you completely
In fact, I once bet a friend, many years ago, that Hawk would be a first ballot HOFer. I’m really surprised that he’s been passed over so much.
But as strong of a case as you make for him, he still seems to have two things going against him; a relatively low lifetime OBP (I’ve heard that’s been a main sticking point with the writers) ans also, sadly, that his numbers tend to lose some luster when compared to the numbers of the “steroid era”.
I, too, hope they get it right this time but I’m not particularly optimistic.
by bluekoolaide on Jan 11, 2009 1:56 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
He's proof
He is proof that sportswriters know less than an average newborn schnauzer about baseball.
He was not the best in any individual category but he performed in them all.
If Dawson was on the field he could beat you with his bat, his legs, his arm and his glove.
Barbara V. October 14, 1941 - December 19, 2008. A great lady who was a friend to all and like a second mom to her children's friends (she was my best friend's mom)
by cubstoseriesby100 on Jan 11, 2009 2:31 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Also
Also he is one of only 3 players to have 2500 plus hits 400 plus homeruns and 300 plus stolen bases. And only one of 2 to do it without putting needles in his butt, (Bonds and Mays are the other 2).
Barbara V. October 14, 1941 - December 19, 2008. A great lady who was a friend to all and like a second mom to her children's friends (she was my best friend's mom)
by cubstoseriesby100 on Jan 11, 2009 2:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yahbut
It is generally accepted that Bonds didn’t start doping until after the ’98 season and at that point he already had hit over 400 home runs. And while Mays has not been accused of using steroids, he has been accused of using amphetamines. And Ricky could have hit 400 homers if Ricky had wanted to.
by FrankSereno on Jan 11, 2009 3:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Ricky believes that is true
Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.
by bren on Jan 11, 2009 4:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He was also a class act
who hustled, worked his butt off and truly respected and loved the game (and the fans). I know that these qualities are more intangible and don’t necessarily have anything to do with HOF “credentials”, but players like Dawson should be honored if, for nothing else, than as examples of the right way to approach the best game there is.
by bluekoolaide on Jan 11, 2009 2:35 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Right.
I hope all those who quote statistics only in mentioning who should or shouldn’t be in the Hall will remember that it’s not the “Hall of Statistical Accomplishment”. It’s a Hall of FAME. And one quality is that you should be FAMOUS, have accomplished something that gives you fame, rather than simply a dry list of numbers.
Andre Dawson qualifies on both counts, in my estimation.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
by Al on Jan 11, 2009 2:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree completely
The Hall of Fame is about a records/numbers/statistics b/c that is how you discern who the games greatest players were, thats what the stats are for; objectivity.
How popular or famous a player was during their career should have no bearing on their enshrinement. Once a player is enshrined in Cooperstown, then they are famous for that accomplishment and for being celebrated with the legends of the game-the name of the museum is happenstance.
So I dont think FAME is a quality necessary for enshrinement, nor should it be a factor.
That being said, I do think he should get it, his weak OPB/OPS not withstanding-I think if he’s being excluded b/c of one stat, then they should look at his total numbers.
Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.
by bren on Jan 11, 2009 4:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I respectfully disagree.
It is a Hall of Fame. If you want to make it a Hall of Statistical Accomplishments, go ahead. But it isn’t that.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
by Al on Jan 11, 2009 4:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well I guess we wont see eye to eye
but those stats are what make them famous, in part.
I guess I’ll put myself in the camp that it should be an elite class. At the end of the day, I think he does belong
Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.
by bren on Jan 11, 2009 4:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, I agree that the stats make them famous...
… and no doubt, you don’t put people with ordinary stats in the Hall. On this I think we agree.
I just think there’s more to it. The fact that Andre played the game with dignity and class, I think, is another factor in his favor.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
by Al on Jan 11, 2009 4:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Reggie Jackson is in
Because he hit three home runs in one World Series game. Yes, he hit 550+ homers in his career, but he’s in because when the man was up, you didn’t want to look away.
Ozzie Smith is in because of the way he played shortstop.
Dawson’s stats are good enough. His defense was stellar. He gets the classy-guy benefit of the doubt. And he screams “Hall of Fame”
Two things about OBP.
1) His OPS was Top 10 six times in his career because his slugging percentage was great.
2) I’m tired of measuring past players by Moneyball stats. The game was played differently. Stolen bases weren’t “discovered” to be bad. You traded homers for strikeouts.
The worst beer I had was pretty good.
by Worf on Jan 11, 2009 5:54 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
Jackson also had 1700 RBI
563 HR and a 356/846 OBP/OPS, so I think he wouldve been in regardless of his post season stats or Yankeedom
Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.
by bren on Jan 11, 2009 6:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I dont know, getting on base was always the key
its not as if thats a new revelation, the hoopla and attention paid to it has certainly increased, but to say players/managers of the past werent aware that getting on base was important is a bit misleading.
Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.
by bren on Jan 11, 2009 6:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Have you actually read Moneyball?
CUBS WIN! CUE THE ORCHESTRA!
by Keith on Jan 11, 2009 7:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Stolen bases weren't bad!
Stolen bases became less valuable when they juiced the ball in the early 90’s.
It is absolutely fair to judge players by their context – Dawson’s SBs were more valuable in his career than they would have been today, and so he should receive more credit for them.
But it’s stupid to measure him as though we haven’t learned anything about baseball since now and then. Plenty of guys in his league walked back then – that’s why Dawson’s BB rate and OBP were low compared to his peers.
by cwyers on Jan 11, 2009 8:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
was the ball juiced
or were the players juiced? Didn’t they lower the mound too?
Cubs Karma: Don't take anything for granted.....
by Andre Fonseca on Jan 12, 2009 1:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with this post in its entirety He deserves it..
However there is that .323. OBP thing
"I played with one of the best pitchers in history, Greg Maddux," Zambrano said"
by fischisgod on Jan 11, 2009 2:54 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
AARGH!
Why is OBP a disqualifier?
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
by Al on Jan 11, 2009 3:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Becuase that number is atrocious
Absurdly bad.. I think he should still be in though
"I played with one of the best pitchers in history, Greg Maddux," Zambrano said"
by fischisgod on Jan 11, 2009 4:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Dale Murphy
Why aren’t people up in arms about Dale Murphy not getting in? His stats are nearly equivalent to Hawk’s and he won two MVP awards. If Rice gets in, then both Murphy and Hawk should get in. But to me, none of those three are quite there. They were very good, great for several seasons, but not great enough for long enough. Sorry.
by FrankSereno on Jan 11, 2009 3:39 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
The problem with Murphy is...
… his career tailed off in a big hurry after age 34, and after age 31 he had three really bad seasons.
His overall numbers are good, but he really had only half a good career.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
by Al on Jan 11, 2009 3:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Dillema
I’ve heard a few rumblings Dawson has a chance this year.
Deep dillema for me, I want to boycott until Santo gets in but Andre is my Andre and I did go for Ryno.
Barbara V. October 14, 1941 - December 19, 2008. A great lady who was a friend to all and like a second mom to her children's friends (she was my best friend's mom)
by cubstoseriesby100 on Jan 11, 2009 3:45 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't vote for Dawson
Dawson was a below average player in the proven to be most important stat there is: OBP. The fact is Dawson wasn´t such a great slugger to make up for his awful OBP. And finally, his low OBP tells more of the story: he was a very vulnerable hitter, of the type you don’t want up there with the game on the line. Because of these things, I wouldn’t vote for him. He has borderline numbers, no doubt, but IMO, on the wrong side of the line.
by Luis on Jan 11, 2009 3:53 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
You can make some arguments about his OBP
That his job was to drive in runs, which he did, so instead of taking pitches to get on base, he expanded his strike zone to drive in a run from scoring position which surely effected his OBP some what.
But to cherry pick one stat and ignore the rest isnt something I agree with. If youre going to do that, Im sure there are scores of guys that can be removed from the hall of fame.
Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.
by bren on Jan 11, 2009 4:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not one stat
But the single most important one.
Dawson had an OPS+ of 119 for his career… I also wonder how that stacks up against hall of famers.
by Luis on Jan 11, 2009 4:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Just to pick one Hall of Famer at random...
… Ernie Banks: 122.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
by Al on Jan 11, 2009 4:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Bad comparison
Ernie played a lot of games at SS, the worst offensive position outside of catcher. His 122 means a lot more than Dawson’s 119.
Try outfielders.
by Luis on Jan 11, 2009 4:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, you didn't say this was position specific.
Since many are making this comparison:
Jim Rice: 128
Rickey Henderson: 127
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
by Al on Jan 11, 2009 5:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Henderson's
Lifetime OPS+ is hurt because he kept playing until he was 44. Dawson’s is lower too—he played until 41 and wasn’t great in Boston or Florida. But 44 is more impressive than 41.
Also, we use OPS+ because it’s a simple and easy number to use, but it isn’t the most accurate for predicting value. It overvalues slugging and undervalues OBP. (It counts them as equal, when OBP is on a scale of 0 to 1.0 and Slugging is on a 0 to 4.0 scale) Since Rickey’s #1 skill is OBP and Dawson’s #1 weakness is OBP, such a comparison is going to make them look more equal than they are.
Still, Rickey is one of the greatest players ever. The correct comparison is to Rice, of whom Andre was a very similar hitter. As a hitter, Dawson comes up short of Rice in both power and OBP, even after adjusting between Fenway Park and Stade Olympique. (Wrigley’s about a wash with Fenway in that era.) But defensively, at least while he was in Montreal, Dawson was a positive defensive player whereas Rice was a butcher. Dawson’s career was longer, so he has better “counting” stats. So they come out fairly even in my mind.
My opinion is that it really depends on how big you want the Hall of Fame to be if you want Dawson in. If Andre goes in, he’s certainly was a much better player than a lot of the stiffs from the 1920s and ‘30s who are already in (Chick Hafey?) so inducting him wouldn’t lower the standards. But if you take in Dawson, then open the gates for Rice, Parker and Murphy. You’ve also got to strongly consider Dwight Evans, Darrell Evans, and Matt Williams. If you’re OK with them getting in, then you should be standing behind Dawson’s candidacy too.
The thing with Santo and Blyleven is that they’re so ridiculously overqualified that they’re now being kept out by sportswriters and ballplayers who simply don’t understand how ballgames are won.
Personally, I think Bobby Grich and his 125 OPS+ and Gold Glove defense at second base should have gone in before any of these guys other than Rickey. Grich was a far, far better player than Joe Gordon, who just got elected. Yet his only year on the ballot, he got 2.6% of the vote and fell off. I have trouble taking any institution seriously that would give Maury Wills ten times as many votes in the same election. Or Rusty Staub three times as many.
by Josh77 on Jan 11, 2009 7:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll have to disagree.
I think Dawson is a borderline Hall case, while Rice should have dropped off the ballot years ago.
I wouldn’t be greatly upset if Dawson missed the Hall, but I wouldn’t be disappointed if he gets in. He’s right on the edge there and so I think disagreement is reasonable.
Rice was a one-dimensional slugger who had no other value – not on defense, not taking walks or batting for average, not baserunning.
Grich is a good guy to campaign for; so are Trammel and Raines.
by cwyers on Jan 11, 2009 8:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't greatly disagree
I think Dawson’s defense after his knee injuries in Montreal didn’t make him the real positive that is needed to push him past better OBP and Slugging numbers. On top of that, while Dawson was hurt by Montreal, he was helped greatly by playing in Wrigley, so I don’t think that you can really push Dawson past Rice on the basis of ballparks, especially when Rice comes out on top in OPS+.
I know this isn’t a reason to vote for someone, but another reason I’d like to support Grich is that the Angels still don’t have a player in Cooperstown with an Angels hat on. Ryan probably should have, but he whined his way into a Rangers cap. If Vlad Guerreero falls off a cliff in the next couple of seasons, it may be decades before Anaheim gets a hall of famer.
by Josh77 on Jan 11, 2009 8:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The big difference between Rice and Dawson is that one was a CF (for at least half of his career) who’s good defensively, and one was a RF who was bad defensively.
As far as parks go, using Baseball Reference’s park factors, Dawson’s career average (weighted by games played each season) is 101, Rice’s 107. Rice has the eighth-highest average career park factor of any player with 1500+ games played.
by cwyers on Jan 11, 2009 8:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
if his job was to drive in runs
he had 5517 PA with nobody on base and put up even worse numbers.
by scarymonsters85 on Jan 11, 2009 4:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No doubt
His low OBP was a result of him being a free swinger and having big holes on that swing. He was toolsy, in the same manner Soriano is toolsy, the difference being he was superlative defensively and Soriano sucks there.
by Luis on Jan 11, 2009 4:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And, obviously, the defensive value...
… while less easily measurable, gives him considerable credit.
As does his baserunning ability.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
by Al on Jan 11, 2009 5:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It does give him credit
But I don’t think it puts him over the hump. I think his defense makes the argument a bit more complex though.
by Luis on Jan 11, 2009 5:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
OBP
OBP’s of a few current hall of famers Eddie Murry .359,Reggie Jackson .356,Dave Winfield.353,Ryan Sandberg.344,Robin Yount.342,Cal Ripkin.340 and Gary Carter .335 none that much better then Dawson. And none would even be in the top 50 among active players. So OBP’s is just BS.
Telling it how it is
by Telling it how it is on Jan 11, 2009 5:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Ha
Ryne was a second baseman, Ripken a SS and Yount played most of his games at SS too, Carter a catcher. And btw, there is definitely a difference between .359 and .327. And I also mentioned that his slugging was so great that he made up for it. I still would like to see how his OPS+ compares to other outfielders (specially right fielders).
by Luis on Jan 11, 2009 5:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
meant to say his slugging *wasn't* so great...
by Luis on Jan 11, 2009 5:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess the fact that we're arguing this on a Cubs blog doesnt bode well for his chances
Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.
by bren on Jan 11, 2009 5:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Got that right :P
I do have to note my aversion for “toolsy players”………….. the Cubs have made me not appreciatte them one bit.
by Luis on Jan 11, 2009 5:33 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I think the increase in metrics and the devaluation of RBIs is somewhat wrong
And will surely hurt his chances, but traditional stats are still worthwhile, and his totals are impressive, but might ultimately be borderline. Dawson wouldnt be the worst hall of famer by a long shot
Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.
by bren on Jan 11, 2009 5:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the increase in metrics and the devaluation of RBIs...
… as criteria for the Hall of Fame, take away somewhat from the honor given.
I repeat: it is not the “Hall of Statistical Achievements”.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
by Al on Jan 11, 2009 5:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well
In 59 AB in the post season Dawson put hit .186, with an OBP of .238 and a slugging % of .237.
The prime stage for fame is the post season, and Dawson was pretty awful when it counted the most.
by Luis on Jan 11, 2009 5:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
How about the guy Steinbrenner used to call "Mr. May"?
Dave Winfield hit .208/.304/.337 in 101 postseason AB>
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
by Al on Jan 11, 2009 6:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Should I rest my case?
Cause as bad as Winfield was in the post season, Dawson was worse, and is worse in almost every offensive category (regular season) you can pick.
Dawson is close, but not good enough. In fact, is scary how much his numbers stack up against a guy like Soriano, which I absolutely loathe. And no coincidence both were guys you didn’t want at the plate with the game on the line.
by Luis on Jan 11, 2009 6:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The postseason is a crapshoot.
Anything can happen, and that’s why postseason performance is generally a terrible evaluator of talent or merit.
CUBS WIN! CUE THE ORCHESTRA!
by Keith on Jan 11, 2009 6:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I would agree that it would be sad if his OPS alone was the reason for his exclusion
But perhaps he’s just one of the Dale Murphy/Jim Rice (so far) types, good but not good enough.
But ive read, notably Keith Law, columnists who cite that one stat as their M.O. for not voting him in.
But if Rice gets in, I gotta believe Dawson is next
Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.
by bren on Jan 11, 2009 6:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
RBIs are also stats.
The problem with an RBI fetish is that you end up with a Hall Of One-Dimensional Sluggers, instead of a hall that truly celebrates being good at baseball.
Celebrating guys like Rice for their inflated RBI totals, and denying entry to guys like Trammel and Raines who deserve to be in the Hall, isn’t about stats versus something else. The case for Rice is all about stats – HR and RBI, that is, without an understanding of the park he played in, or the poor defense he played, or – yes – the role of OBP.
by cwyers on Jan 11, 2009 7:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So would you put in Thurman Munson or Steve Garvey?
Yankee Captain of two World Series Champions? An MVP award winner? A heck of a good player too and as popular and “famous” as they get. More famous than Dawson certainly.
Or Steve Garvey? Was there a more famous player in the 1970s than Steve Garvey? He was on TV all the time in my childhood. Also won an MVP award and I think got the most all-star votes something like five years in a row.
Do they deserve to go in on their “fame”? This seems to me to be a disingenuous argument. You aren’t arguing against using statistics to determine who should go into the Hall of Fame. You’re arguing that we should use certain statistics (RBIs) and not use other statistics (OBP or OPS).
by Josh77 on Jan 11, 2009 8:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
McGwire and Sosa
Well, if you’re talking about fame, then McGwire and Sosa should certainly be Hall of Famers. They were both all over the TV in 1998. People who couldn’t have cared less about baseball knew who McGwire and Sosa were.
"The big possum walks late." - Harry Caray
by memphiscub on Jan 12, 2009 12:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's a silly comparison
Looking at their stats and their careers, McGwire and Sosa are overwhelmingly qualified for the Hall of Fame. The only argument for keeping them out is a supposition that they cheated using steroids, although neither has been convicted of anything (and in Sosa’s case, no one has even testified to selling him steroids or seeing him do it.) People are keeping out McGwire (and one assumes Sosa and Bonds, eventually) on the same basis that they’re keeping out Pete Rose and Joe Jackson.
The point is that Munson and Garvey were good, famous players that everyone thought were Hall of Famers when they were active, but after their careers ended, people took another look at their stats and changed their minds.
by Josh77 on Jan 12, 2009 2:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Orel Hershiser: Better Comparison
He was certainly famous back in 1988, when he had that unworldly season for the Dodgers. He was all over the TV including The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. His stats don’t add up to being a Hall of Famer. I believe a lot of people not interested in baseball knew who Hershiser was.
"The big possum walks late." - Harry Caray
by memphiscub on Jan 12, 2009 2:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Rec'd
"I got a PBS mind in an MTV world"...Jimmy Buffett
by The Ryno and I Know on Jan 12, 2009 1:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
wasn't such a great slugger?
are you high? The Hawk WAS the slugger on the Cubs. Who cares if a guy takes a walk when the number 5 hitter was Vance Law or something.
Cubs Karma: Don't take anything for granted.....
by Andre Fonseca on Jan 12, 2009 1:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well...
My ballot: Ricky Henderson, Bert Blyleven, Andre Dawson
Who will get voted in on Monday? Ricky Henderson and Jim Rice
—-
Rice has no business being in the Hall. But his election will surely grease the skids for Dawson being elected within a few years. Because there is no way Rice can be in the Hall if Dawson isn’t.
by BLou on Jan 11, 2009 3:54 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Andre Dawson shouldn't be in the HOF.
He was an above-average fielding RF without the kind of offensive numbers that a RF should put up. Take off your freaking nostalgia glasses and realize that he really wasn’t THAT fantastic of a baseball player.
CUBS WIN! CUE THE ORCHESTRA!
by Keith on Jan 11, 2009 5:34 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
OK then.
Name three NL right fielders from the same era you’d rather have in your lineup when the chips were down who are in the Hall.
by MN exile on Jan 11, 2009 5:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, here's the thing.
There is only one member of the Hall of Fame that played in the 1980s, played RF, and played in the NL; that would be Tony Gwynn. But here are three RFs with better stats: Gwynn, Pedro Guerrero, and Darryl Strawberry.
CUBS WIN! CUE THE ORCHESTRA!
by Keith on Jan 11, 2009 6:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Better stats on what basis?
I’ll give you Gwynn.
Guerrero & Strawberry? Maybe at peak value, but not for career value.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
by Al on Jan 11, 2009 6:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Career EQAs:
Dawson: .286
Guerrero: .312
Strawberry: .308
I’m not saying that Dawson was bad by any means. He just isn’t HOF-worthy.
CUBS WIN! CUE THE ORCHESTRA!
by Keith on Jan 11, 2009 6:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So now we're voting on the Hall of EQA?
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
by Al on Jan 11, 2009 7:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well
EQA is one of the best evaluators of pure offensive output that has been developed. And yeah, defense does make a difference, but generally a player is voted in because they were good offensively (pitchers aside). So yeah, we could call it that.
For those of you who have no idea what EQA is, here’s a definition from Baseball Prospectus:
Equivalent Average. A measure of total offensive value per out, with corrections for league offensive level, home park, and team pitching. EQA considers batting as well as baserunning, but not the value of a position player’s defense. The EqA adjusted for all-time also has a correction for league difficulty. The scale is deliberately set to approximate that of batting average. League average EqA is always equal to .260. EqA is derived from Raw EqA, which is (H + TB + 1.5*(BB + HBP + SB) + SH + SF) divided by (AB + BB + HBP + SH + SF + CS + SB). REqA is then normalized to account for league difficulty and scale to create EqA.
CUBS WIN! CUE THE ORCHESTRA!
by Keith on Jan 11, 2009 7:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
...let's just ignore defense for the Hall?
Brilliant.
As far as offense, you have to realize that Strawberry played 17 years; Dawson played 21 seasons. Those extra four years at the end of Dawson’s career drag down his rate stats, without actually making him less valuable than Strawberry – because simply by playing those years without being a total drag on the lineup, Dawson was providing more value than Strawberry.
by cwyers on Jan 11, 2009 7:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough.
And I wasn’t saying let’s just ignore defense; unfortunately, my understanding of defensive metrics is in its infancy.
CUBS WIN! CUE THE ORCHESTRA!
by Keith on Jan 11, 2009 8:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Gwynn, I'll agree.
The others, well, Guerrero, nah, Strawberry, hell no – total head case.
by MN exile on Jan 11, 2009 6:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You know who was a head case?
Ty Cobb. He also had an insanely good line of .366/.433/.512. Would you keep him out?
CUBS WIN! CUE THE ORCHESTRA!
by Keith on Jan 11, 2009 6:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Neither of the two have better or even close career numbers. Guerrero 215 HR’s 898 RBI’s and only 97 SB’s. And Strawberry 335 HR’s 1000 RBI’s and 221 SB’s. Not even in the same class.
Telling it how it is
by Telling it how it is on Jan 11, 2009 6:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Counting stats?
Dawson stuck around for a longer time than either Guerrero or Strawberry. If you want to talk power, Dawson’s career SLG% of .482 is 2 points higher than Guerrero’s .480. And Strawberry has both of them beat with a .505 SLG%.
CUBS WIN! CUE THE ORCHESTRA!
by Keith on Jan 11, 2009 6:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
For the HOF, counting stats should count more than rates.
Sticking around longer means contributing more to team wins, unless you’re Pete Rose and you’re writing yourself into the lineup well past your sell-by date. Dawson’s last four years aren’t a HoF case in and of themselves, but they certainly add something to the discussion.
by cwyers on Jan 11, 2009 8:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Freaking nostalgia glasses?
Hell. There it is.
Go there.
The worst beer I had was pretty good.
by Worf on Jan 11, 2009 5:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Something to consider
Whenever the name of Andre Dawson is mentioned to some of the pitchers he faced in his prime they all have the same opinion. When he came to the plate he was the epitome of intimidation. They were fear stricken by his ability to change the game with one swing.
There have been others with better stats who scared very few with the game on the line. Look at Sammy Sosa; over 600 homers, yes, but with the game on the line he didn’t scare anybody.
To discount defense when considering for the HOF is a travesty. Dawson’s job was to be a run producer. When runners are on 1st and 2nd or 1st and 3rd did you really prefer him to walk? I’ll take the Dawson we had, the one who did what it took to get the job done.
You need to consider the way the game was played during a players career not what it is now. Judge the player with his contemporaries.
by Chuck12570 on Jan 11, 2009 7:58 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Excuse me?
If pitchers were so scared of Dawson, why did he walk so rarely? If they didn’t fear Sosa, how come he walked so often?
“Boy, I’m really scared of Dawson, but I’m going to give him a fat one over the plate anyway!”
And as far as Dawson being feared with the game on the line—well, I’ll just say that I remember the 1989 NLCS better than you do. It was Mark Grace that every Giant was afraid of. Andre went 2 for 19 with a double. They were pitching around Grace to get to Dawson by the end.
This is just a silly argument—one that the Jim Rice supporters have been using and which is not supported by the facts in either case.
by Josh77 on Jan 11, 2009 8:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Dawson at least has the intentional walk totals to back that claim up. Rice has 77 IBB, which is absurdly low for a guy who was supposed to be such a feared hitter. (In Rice’s MVP season – his best year by OPS+ as well – he was second on the Red Sox in IBB. True story! He was runner-up to Fred Lynn, who has nearly identical career hitting numbers by OPS+ or Batting Runs, and played CF to Rice’s RF. Lynn so far as I can tell has never been touted for the Hall, oddly enough.)
by cwyers on Jan 11, 2009 8:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Since I brought the point up, Dawson has 143 career IBB and Sosa has 154.
by cwyers on Jan 11, 2009 8:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Kind of a silly stat though
Isn’t it, since an IBB depends on a lot more things than who is “feared.”
Dawson was IBB’d 21 times in 1990. He had Dave Clark, Dwight Smith, Marvell Wynne and Luis Salazar batting behind him.
by Josh77 on Jan 11, 2009 9:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Lynn
Kind of disappeared in Anaheim. Back then, the Angels were really a backwater and were completely in the shadow of the Dodgers. On top of that, injuries really didn’t give him the counting stats that Rice had. And Anaheim wasn’t as good a place to hit as Fenway.
I remember in the first edition of the Bill James Historical Abstract, James quoted an elderly man he’d met who had been a Red Sox fan from the days of Tris Speaker. James asked him who the best Red Sox player he’d ever seen was and he said “Fred Lynn. Don’t think much of him now, but for a while he was the best I’d ever seen.” I guess he slept through the Ted Williams years (or he really values defense), but other than that, I can see his point.
by Josh77 on Jan 11, 2009 8:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah.
Dawson’s hurt for the same reason – played a lot of his career in Montreal. (I think Tim Raines suffers from the Expos curse as well.)
That’s one reason I really have a distaste for emphasizing “fame” in the Hall of Fame, because what you end up with is the “Hall Of People Who Played In New York And Boston.” Don Mattingly is more famous than Alan Trammel, but Mattingly shouldn’t be allowed into Cooperstown without paying for admission and Trammel is one of the undersung players of his time.
by cwyers on Jan 11, 2009 9:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Mattingly
was a great player who had a short career. Trammell was a great player who had a long career. One played in NY and the other in Detroit. I’m with you on that one.
What I don’t get about Raines is that he won two World Series for the Yankees and he still doesn’t get any respect. Montreal certainly hurts him but you’d think those two Yankee rings would make up for that. But I guess he just wasn’t thought of as a Yankee guy, unlike say, Paul O’Neill who Yankee fans will probably push for the Hall next.
To be fair though, as Cub fans, we really don’t have a lot to complain about in the HoF realm. Santo to be sure, but Cub players are well represented in Cooperstown and there aren’t many teams with a higher profile than we have. The team that is really overrepresented is the Giants, actually, and mostly from their NY days.
by Josh77 on Jan 11, 2009 9:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The problem with Raines, I think...
…is that in his time in New York he was a platoon/4th OF guy, and so people remember him as a part-time player, forgetting his time in Montreal.
The really funny part about Raines is that he’s fifth on the all-time steals list, and yet he’s a SABR poster child who doesn’t have a lot of mainstream support. It’s not like he’s a one-dimensional burner/slap-hitter like Juan Pierre, either.
by cwyers on Jan 11, 2009 9:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Your point about "NY & Boston" is taken.
Still, there are and I would argue, SHOULD BE factors other than dry lists of numbers.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
by Al on Jan 12, 2009 4:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
1975, 1979 Fred Lynn
Other than those two seasons, Lynn didn’t have any great seasons. He had a lot of good seasons with the Angels and Orioles but only got above the 80 RBI mark once after 1979.
"The big possum walks late." - Harry Caray
by memphiscub on Jan 12, 2009 12:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Dawson
Was hurt in ’89, but played anyway. I guess if you want to you can point out that last years Cubs were terrible just because they wer swept in the first round of the plaoffs. Talk about blinders. Look at the total body of work next time.
by Chuck12570 on Jan 12, 2009 10:13 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Had Dawson been 100% healthy in '89...
… the Cubs might have won that series.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
by Al on Jan 12, 2009 11:11 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe if they could get Will Clark out
We lost 4 games to 1. I don’t know that a healthy Dawson makes the difference, although he was dreadful in the series. We’d have been better off if he hadn’t played.
by Josh77 on Jan 12, 2009 2:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This really doesn't need to be an arguement of stats versus... whatever else.
There is a HoF case to be made for Dawson using “sabermetric” stats. Just for instance, he’s got the eighth-most career Win Shares of any post-Ruth player who is eligable for election into the Hall, one more than Blyleven and three shy of McGuire. He’s been a member of BBTF’s Hall of Merit for several years now, a shadow Hall of Fame crawling with stats geeks. To be pro-Dawson isn’t to be anti-stats, or vice versa.
by cwyers on Jan 11, 2009 8:11 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Good point
It shouldn’t be that we should take some information into consideration and not others. Dawson’s low OBP is relevant. So are his RBI totals and HRs. As is his MVP award.
by Josh77 on Jan 11, 2009 8:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
As is his dignified and classy approach to the game.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
by Al on Jan 11, 2009 8:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
There seems to be a point at which character disqualifies you from the Hall regardless of stats (and it seems to sit somewhere between Pete Rose and Ty Cobb right now). There’s also a point at which stats disqualifies you from the Hall, regardless of character. Someone should have told the VC this a few decades ago.
by cwyers on Jan 11, 2009 9:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
On this, I will agree with you.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
by Al on Jan 12, 2009 4:02 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
One of my favorite Hawk moments
was when he got plunked… walked halfway down the line towards first, then charged the mound.
Maybe that wasn’t that classy, but it was high on the awesome scale. Anyone remember who the pitcher was?
Cubs Karma: Don't take anything for granted.....
by Andre Fonseca on Jan 12, 2009 2:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
if it's the one I'm remembering, I think it was Eric Show
as I recall, he was on the ground at the plate for awhile, teammates and trainers crowded around him, then slowly he gets up, kinda shakes the cobwebs out of his head, everyone’s relieved, fans start breathing again, all is right again in the world…
then he breaks through everyone around him and charges the mound like a mad bull. Poor Show – not sure what the Padres team colors were back then, but if he wasn’t wearing brown pants before Dawson charged, he certainly was then. ;-)
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
by ballhawk on Jan 12, 2009 9:34 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Also, quick note for Dawson’s defense. Looking at Rally’s Totalzone numbers, Dawson was +50 runs saved above average at CF in his career, +14 in RF. He also had a plus throwing arm, although I can’t find that stat report right now.
by cwyers on Jan 11, 2009 8:49 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
his balls didn't have arc
he was honestly like no other OF I have ever seen-
When he was warming up the tosses looked like they were on a wire.
Cubs Karma: Don't take anything for granted.....
by Andre Fonseca on Jan 12, 2009 2:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Because THE Hawk...
… does not belong there.
by DrCrawdad on Jan 12, 2009 7:34 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
That suit is just...
… weird.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
by Al on Jan 12, 2009 8:21 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
by Al on Jan 12, 2009 8:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Are you kidding? he Hawk was baseball's fashion plate. That nehru suit was all
the rage. To be honest, that was kind of conservative compared to some of Hawk’s duds. He had some mean threads and knew how to sport them. The rumor is that no one could touch him when it cme to his golf outfits. He was in a class by himself.
"Hats for bats.....keep bats warm." - Pedro Cerrano
"Hey bartender, Jobu needs a refill !!!!!!!" - Eddie Harris
by willie mays hayes' gloves on Jan 13, 2009 10:02 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Put it in the trash cannnnnnnnnn...
Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
by ballhawk on Jan 12, 2009 11:30 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
suit matches annoucing talent though...
n/t
Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.
by blackhawk24 on Jan 13, 2009 8:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Dawson in the hall
I happen to just watch on the MLB network the Cubs/Pirates game from 1991. It just reminded me why Dawson should be in the HOF, the geniune intensity he brought to the game has never been matched.
Its injuries that will keep him out ultimately. Just a shame.
by jeff_pico on Jan 12, 2009 10:17 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
4 words in summary
Too-many-dumbass-writers
First, the Hawk (the real Hawk, not the ass clown pictured above) will get in, just like Rice. Hopefully it won’t be the full 15 years. Hawk has 7 years left. My guess is between ‘10-’12.
Second, with idiots out there handing in blank ballots and using the relative strength/weakness of the “HoF class” a given year, it just makes an already subjective process worse. Remember Gwynn and Ripken? This ass clown, Paul Ledewski who used to “write” for the Daily Southtown, handed in a blank ballot that year. His “reason” was anyone from the steriod era was suspect. Was he kidding anyone?! Steroid era? Ripken and Gwynn?! Just what in the hell was this asshole watching for all those years?! If treated as a random variable (writer) who chose to speak out on this, you know there has to be several more idiots with the same dumbass thinking.
And the moron this year – forgot his name – said, “he wasn’t a Ricky Henderson guy”. What?! What the hell is a Ricky Henderson guy? When you have a group of people who IMHO has upwards of a majority of that group if not more than a majority, to have never played a day of organized ball (pick your sport; this goes for hoops, pigskin & the puck as well) picking HoF’ers, it smacks of a bad system.
HoF voting should go to a distinguished group of persons from each of the MLB ball clubs. Whether its tenured managers and/or GM’s, it has to be persons from the organizations that can truly vote in an unbiased manner on the superior players, giving them their recognition. The only thing worse is the “tree-house” club more commonly known as the veterans-committee-who-can’t-vote-in-anyone-headed-up-by-Joe-I’m-perfect-Morgan.
Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.
by blackhawk24 on Jan 13, 2009 8:45 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Cubs By The Numbers
Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.
Click here to order your copy, available now!
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
