Andre Dawson HOFer? (1 Viewer)

[dagogrease]

As every year a debate is raging within my group of friends asking the question is Andre Dawson and or Jim Rice Hall of Fame worthy. Here are the stats for Dawson...

Dawson:

AVG - 279

HITS - 2774

HR - 438

SB - 314

Gold Gloves - 8

1977 Rookie of the Year

1987 MLB MVP (on a last place team)

One of the best defensive outfielders of that era with 5158 put outs and 157 outfield assists.

Some Hall of Famers with similar stats include:

Billy Williams

Al Kaline

Tony Perez

Dave Winfield (although he had the magical number 3000 hits)

What do you think? Are the baseball writer now a days guily of the 3000 hits, 500 homers or 300 wins syndrome that they will not vote in Rice and/or Dawson?

 

[Slinger]

yesno

 

[redman]

Jim Rice

Year Ag Tm Lg G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG TB SH SF IBB HBP GDP +--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+ 1974 21 BOS AL 24 67 6 18 2 1 1 13 0 0 4 12 .269 .307 .373 25 0 3 0 1 2 1975 22 BOS AL 144 564 92 174 29 4 22 102 10 5 36 122 .309 .350 .491 277 1 8 7 4 19 MVP-3,RoY-2 1976 23 BOS AL 153 581 75 164 25 8 25 85 8 5 28 123 .282 .315 .482 280 2 9 2 4 18 1977 24 BOS AL 160 644 104 206 29 15 39 114 5 4 53 120 .320 .376 .593 382 0 5 10 8 21 MVP-4,AS 1978 25 BOS AL 163 677 121 213 25 15 46 139 7 5 58 126 .315 .370 .600 406 1 5 7 5 15 MVP-1,AS 1979 26 BOS AL 158 619 117 201 39 6 39 130 9 4 57 97 .325 .381 .596 369 0 8 4 4 16 MVP-5,AS 1980 27 BOS AL 124 504 81 148 22 6 24 86 8 3 30 87 .294 .336 .504 254 1 3 5 4 16 AS 1981 28 BOS AL 108 451 51 128 18 1 17 62 2 2 34 76 .284 .333 .441 199 0 7 3 3 14 1982 29 BOS AL 145 573 86 177 24 5 24 97 0 1 55 98 .309 .375 .494 283 0 3 6 7 29 MVP-19 1983 30 BOS AL 155 626 90 191 34 1 39 126 0 2 52 102 .305 .361 .550 344 0 5 10 6 31 SS,MVP-4,AS 1984 31 BOS AL 159 657 98 184 25 7 28 122 4 0 44 102 .280 .323 .467 307 0 6 8 1 36 SS,MVP-13,AS 1985 32 BOS AL 140 546 85 159 20 3 27 103 2 0 51 75 .291 .349 .487 266 0 9 5 2 35 AS 1986 33 BOS AL 157 618 98 200 39 2 20 110 0 1 62 78 .324 .384 .490 303 0 9 5 4 19 MVP-3,AS 1987 34 BOS AL 108 404 66 112 14 0 13 62 1 1 45 77 .277 .357 .408 165 0 3 3 7 22 1988 35 BOS AL 135 485 57 128 18 3 15 72 1 1 48 89 .264 .330 .406 197 0 6 2 3 18 1989 36 BOS AL 56 209 22 49 10 2 3 28 1 0 13 39 .234 .276 .344 72 0 5 0 1 4+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+ 16 Seasons 8225 2452 79 1451 34 1423 .298 .352 .502 5 94 77 64 315
Andre Dawson

Year Ag Tm  Lg  G   AB	R	H   2B 3B  HR  RBI  SB CS  BB  SO   BA   OBP   SLG   TB   SH  SF IBB HBP GDP +--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+ 1976 21 MON NL  24   85	9   20   4  1   0	7   1  2   5  13  .235  .278  .306   26   2   0   1   0   0 1977 22 MON NL 139  525   64  148  26  9  19   65  21  7  34  93  .282  .326  .474  249   1   4   4   2   6 RoY-1 1978 23 MON NL 157  609   84  154  24  8  25   72  28 11  30 128  .253  .299  .442  269   4   5   3  12   7 1979 24 MON NL 155  639   90  176  24 12  25   92  35 10  27 115  .275  .309  .468  299   8   4   5   6  10 MVP-24 1980 25 MON NL 151  577   96  178  41  7  17   87  34  9  44  69  .308  .358  .492  284   1  10   7   6   9 SS,MVP-7 1981 26 MON NL 103  394   71  119  21  3  24   64  26  4  35  50  .302  .365  .553  218   0   5  14   7   6 SS,MVP-2,AS 1982 27 MON NL 148  608  107  183  37  7  23   83  39 10  34  96  .301  .343  .498  303   4   6   4   8   8 MVP-21,AS 1983 28 MON NL 159  633  104  189  36 10  32  113  25 11  38  81  .299  .338  .539  341   0  18  12   9  14 SS,MVP-2,AS 1984 29 MON NL 138  533   73  132  23  6  17   86  13  5  41  80  .248  .301  .409  218   1   6   2   2  12 1985 30 MON NL 139  529   65  135  27  2  23   91  13  4  29  92  .255  .295  .444  235   1   7   8   4  12 1986 31 MON NL 130  496   65  141  32  2  20   78  18 12  37  79  .284  .338  .478  237   1   6  11   6  13 1987 32 CHC NL 153  621   90  178  24  2  49  137  11  3  32 103  .287  .328  .568  353   0   2   7   7  15 SS,MVP-1,AS 1988 33 CHC NL 157  591   78  179  31  8  24   79  12  4  37  73  .303  .344  .504  298   1   7  12   4  13 MVP-15,AS 1989 34 CHC NL 118  416   62  105  18  6  21   77   8  5  35  62  .252  .307  .476  198   0   7  13   1  16 AS 1990 35 CHC NL 147  529   72  164  28  5  27  100  16  2  42  65  .310  .358  .535  283   0   8  21   2  12 MVP-19,AS 1991 36 CHC NL 149  563   69  153  21  4  31  104   4  5  22  80  .272  .302  .488  275   0   6   3   5  10 MVP-14,AS 1992 37 CHC NL 143  542   60  150  27  2  22   90   6  2  30  70  .277  .316  .456  247   0   6   8   4  13 1993 38 BOS AL 121  461   44  126  29  1  13   67   2  1  17  49  .273  .313  .425  196   0   7   4  13  18 1994 39 BOS AL  75  292   34   70  18  0  16   48   2  2   9  53  .240  .271  .466  136   0   1   3   4  15 1995 40 FLA NL  79  226   30   58  10  3   8   37   0  0   9  45  .257  .305  .434   98   0   3   1   8   7 1996 41 FLA NL  42   58	6   16   2  0   2   14   0  0   2  13  .276  .311  .414   24   0   0   0   1   1+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+ 21 Seasons		 9927	  2774	 98	 1591	109	1509  .279  .323  .482	   24 118 143 111 217

 

[Dave Baker]

Close but no kewpie doll for Dawson. Rice? Yes.

And I don't feel like restating my whole diatribe about how numbers don't mean as much as many think.

 

[zamboni]

Tough call on Andre.

Very, very good player, but not sure if I view him as a true HOFer. I tend to put him in the Jim Rice/Ron Santo realm, in that I would have no problem with them being in, although I could also understand if they were kept out. Classic cuspers, if you will.

 

[Gaddis]

I'd like to see Dawson and Rice both get in. But I don't think the fact that Rice isn't in should keep Dawson out. Dawson had a rare combination of skills for his era.

 

[Archie Bunker]

Close but no kewpie doll for Dawson. Rice? Yes.And I don't feel like restating my whole diatribe about how numbers don't mean as much as many think.

If Jim Rice played in any other ball park besides Fenway, he would have had about 25% less HRs on his career. Half his Fenway HRs. would have been high pop outs in any other ballpark. Rice was a terrible defensive player. Dawson was a very good outfielder in his prime. Dawson in.Rice out.

 

[Dave Baker]

Close but no kewpie doll for Dawson. Rice? Yes.And I don't feel like restating my whole diatribe about how numbers don't mean as much as many think.

If Jim Rice played in any other ball park besides Fenway, he would have had about 25% less HRs on his career. Half his Fenway HRs. would have been high pop outs in any other ballpark.

Wait, you're serious.Forget it. This is an old and well traveled road. You just happen to be wrong. Rice dominated more than Dawson and the vast majority of those invovled in the game back then knew it.

 

[dagogrease]

Close but no kewpie doll for Dawson. Rice? Yes.And I don't feel like restating my whole diatribe about how numbers don't mean as much as many think.

If Jim Rice played in any other ball park besides Fenway, he would have had about 25% less HRs on his career. Half his Fenway HRs. would have been high pop outs in any other ballpark.

Wait, you're serious.Forget it. This is an old and well traveled road. You just happen to be wrong. Rice dominated more than Dawson and the vast majority of those invovled in the game back then knew it.

Wouldn't go THAT far. Dawson could do much more than Rice defensively and on the bases. From a single at bat, run-producing perspective Rice was better but as an overall player who could help you in many facets of the game...Dawson was better. Just my

 

[Archie Bunker]

Close but no kewpie doll for Dawson. Rice? Yes.And I don't feel like restating my whole diatribe about how numbers don't mean as much as many think.

If Jim Rice played in any other ball park besides Fenway, he would have had about 25% less HRs on his career. Half his Fenway HRs. would have been high pop outs in any other ballpark.

Wait, you're serious.Forget it. This is an old and well traveled road. You just happen to be wrong. Rice dominated more than Dawson and the vast majority of those invovled in the game back then knew it.

Rice's stats, nearly across the board, were lower in clutch situations than his overall stats. Dawson had a great arm. Rice had no arm. Dawson - 157 career assists. Rice 137 (primarily playing LF at Fenway).

 

[Why Me?]

Close but no kewpie doll for Dawson. Rice? Yes.And I don't feel like restating my whole diatribe about how numbers don't mean as much as many think.

If Jim Rice played in any other ball park besides Fenway, he would have had about 25% less HRs on his career. Half his Fenway HRs. would have been high pop outs in any other ballpark.

Wait, you're serious.Forget it. This is an old and well traveled road. You just happen to be wrong. Rice dominated more than Dawson and the vast majority of those invovled in the game back then knew it.

The Wall giveth and the Wall taketh away. Jim Ed put a lot of dents in that wall that would have been souveneirs anywhere else.

 

[posty]

Dawson winning the MVP in 1987 was a complete joke... There is no way he should have won it...

 

[Gaddis]

Dawson winning the MVP in 1987 was a complete joke... There is no way he should have won it...

He was clearly the best player that year, but he played for a crappy team. I guess an argument could be made for Jack Clark with his 36 HR and 109 RBI or Tony Gwynn with his .370 BA, but who else was there? This was before you had 10 guys in each league hitting 40+ homers, so it wasn't like it could have gone either way. Dawson dominated that season in the middle of a crappy lineup.

 

[posty]

Dawson winning the MVP in 1987 was a complete joke... There is no way he should have won it...

He was clearly the best player that year, but he played for a crappy team. I guess an argument could be made for Jack Clark with his 36 HR and 109 RBI or Tony Gwynn with his .370 BA, but who else was there? This was before you had 10 guys in each league hitting 40+ homers, so it wasn't like it could have gone either way. Dawson dominated that season in the middle of a crappy lineup.

Not saying that he should have won, but Dale Murphy put up better numbers except for HR/RBI and his team wasn't good either...

Year Ag Tm  Lg  G   AB	R	H   2B 3B  HR  RBI  SB CS  BB  SO   BA   OBP   SLG   TB   SH  SF IBB HBP GDP +--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+ 1987 31 ATL NL 159  566  115  167  27  1  44  105  16  6 115 136  .295  .417  .580  328   0   5  29   7  11  1987 32 CHC NL 153  621   90  178  24  2  49  137  11  3  32 103  .287  .328  .568  353   0   2   7   7  15

 

[Gaddis]

Dawson winning the MVP in 1987 was a complete joke... There is no way he should have won it...

He was clearly the best player that year, but he played for a crappy team. I guess an argument could be made for Jack Clark with his 36 HR and 109 RBI or Tony Gwynn with his .370 BA, but who else was there? This was before you had 10 guys in each league hitting 40+ homers, so it wasn't like it could have gone either way. Dawson dominated that season in the middle of a crappy lineup.

Not saying that he should have won, but Dale Murphy put up better numbers except for HR/RBI and his team wasn't good either...

Year Ag Tm  Lg  G   AB	R	H   2B 3B  HR  RBI  SB CS  BB  SO   BA   OBP   SLG   TB   SH  SF IBB HBP GDP +--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+ 1987 31 ATL NL 159  566  115  167  27  1  44  105  16  6 115 136  .295  .417  .580  328   0   5  29   7  11  1987 32 CHC NL 153  621   90  178  24  2  49  137  11  3  32 103  .287  .328  .568  353   0   2   7   7  15

I forgot he had a pretty big season too. But he already had an MVP award (or two, was he back to back?). I know that's not the way these things should work, but it's the way they work. Hell, Michael Jordan should have had about 12 MVP awards.

 

[posty]

Dawson winning the MVP in 1987 was a complete joke... There is no way he should have won it...

He was clearly the best player that year, but he played for a crappy team. I guess an argument could be made for Jack Clark with his 36 HR and 109 RBI or Tony Gwynn with his .370 BA, but who else was there? This was before you had 10 guys in each league hitting 40+ homers, so it wasn't like it could have gone either way. Dawson dominated that season in the middle of a crappy lineup.

Not saying that he should have won, but Dale Murphy put up better numbers except for HR/RBI and his team wasn't good either...

Year Ag Tm  Lg  G   AB	R	H   2B 3B  HR  RBI  SB CS  BB  SO   BA   OBP   SLG   TB   SH  SF IBB HBP GDP +--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+ 1987 31 ATL NL 159  566  115  167  27  1  44  105  16  6 115 136  .295  .417  .580  328   0   5  29   7  11  1987 32 CHC NL 153  621   90  178  24  2  49  137  11  3  32 103  .287  .328  .568  353   0   2   7   7  15

I forgot he had a pretty big season too. But he already had an MVP award (or two, was he back to back?). I know that's not the way these things should work, but it's the way they work. Hell, Michael Jordan should have had about 12 MVP awards.

Murphy had back-to-back awards in 1982-1983...

 

[Gaddis]

Dawson winning the MVP in 1987 was a complete joke... There is no way he should have won it...

He was clearly the best player that year, but he played for a crappy team. I guess an argument could be made for Jack Clark with his 36 HR and 109 RBI or Tony Gwynn with his .370 BA, but who else was there? This was before you had 10 guys in each league hitting 40+ homers, so it wasn't like it could have gone either way. Dawson dominated that season in the middle of a crappy lineup.

Not saying that he should have won, but Dale Murphy put up better numbers except for HR/RBI and his team wasn't good either...

Year Ag Tm  Lg  G   AB	R	H   2B 3B  HR  RBI  SB CS  BB  SO   BA   OBP   SLG   TB   SH  SF IBB HBP GDP +--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+ 1987 31 ATL NL 159  566  115  167  27  1  44  105  16  6 115 136  .295  .417  .580  328   0   5  29   7  11  1987 32 CHC NL 153  621   90  178  24  2  49  137  11  3  32 103  .287  .328  .568  353   0   2   7   7  15

I forgot he had a pretty big season too. But he already had an MVP award (or two, was he back to back?). I know that's not the way these things should work, but it's the way they work. Hell, Michael Jordan should have had about 12 MVP awards.

Murphy had back-to-back awards in 1982-1983...

My guess is what happened was this: sportswriters knew Dawson was good, but he was toiling away in obscurity up in Montreal. So he wasn't a big name on the national scene. Then he goes to Chicago and comes out of nowhere with some gaudy numbers in a big market during a season in which the Lovable Losers, well, lose a lot. He really gave the city something to smile about that year (remember the bleacher bums bowing every time he came up?), and everyone thought he was going to be the first guy to 50 since Foster. He had a great story to go along with a great season, so I think that's why he got the nod.

 

[Despyzer]

It's ridiculous to make this a Rice vs. Dawson argument. I think they both deserve to go in.

To make the case for Dawson, all of his numbers by themselves are a little shy of those shoo-in stats. But look at how close he is in so many categories. He was a great athlete who would have been so much better if he had focused on baseball growing up. Instead he played high school football and tore up both his knees pretty badly. Who knows what his production would have been playing with two good wheels.

 

[Eephus]

The Hawk was a very good player for a long time and a personal favorite, but he doesn't belong among the immortals in the Hall.

Pluses: Defense, power/speed, 87 MVP award

Minuses: Terrible OBP, lack of Runs scored, post-season record

He was hurt by playing in Montreal and his chronic knee problems but those are "woulda, shouda" arguments. He did manage to stick around long enough to play in a ballpark that helped him as much as the O hurt him.

His MVP award was pretty weak as well. I think the writers gave it to him as a lifetime achievement award but he had a sub-.900 OPS that year and played for a last place team.

 

[oso diablo]

Pluses: Defense, power/speed, 87 MVP awardMinuses: Terrible OBP, lack of Runs scored, post-season record

good post (as usual)There are 58 OFs in the HOF. I think 8 of those were a mistake, leaving us with 50 guys. I compared Dawson's record against that group of 50.Pro:- 4787 total bases would rank Dawson #14, just behind Reggie Jackson and ahead of Al Simmons (and Big Poison & Sam Crawford, among others). The average is 4125.- More SB (314) than average (247)- More RBI (1591) than average (1374), more than Kaline, ranking #14.- More Hits, Double & HR than the averageAll his statistical plusses are in counting stats, spurred by playing in 17% more games than the average of these 50 HOFers.Con:- Atrocious OB% for a HOF. Dawson's 323 would be the worst OBP, by far, among these OFs. The worst right now is Lou Brock's 343, a guy with over 3000 hits and over 900 SBs. 323 just isn't good enough for a HOF outfielder.- Similarly, his OPS+ is only 119. Only Brock (109), Ashburn (111), and Sam Rice (112) were worse.

 

[dagogrease]

Pluses: Defense, power/speed, 87 MVP awardMinuses: Terrible OBP, lack of Runs scored, post-season record

good post (as usual)There are 58 OFs in the HOF. I think 8 of those were a mistake, leaving us with 50 guys. I compared Dawson's record against that group of 50.Pro:- 4787 total bases would rank Dawson #14, just behind Reggie Jackson and ahead of Al Simmons (and Big Poison & Sam Crawford, among others). The average is 4125.- More SB (314) than average (247)- More RBI (1591) than average (1374), more than Kaline, ranking #14.- More Hits, Double & HR than the averageAll his statistical plusses are in counting stats, spurred by playing in 17% more games than the average of these 50 HOFers.Con:- Atrocious OB% for a HOF. Dawson's 323 would be the worst OBP, by far, among these OFs. The worst right now is Lou Brock's 343, a guy with over 3000 hits and over 900 SBs. 323 just isn't good enough for a HOF outfielder.- Similarly, his OPS+ is only 119. Only Brock (109), Ashburn (111), and Sam Rice (112) were worse.

Great breakdown...thanks! OBP is not good, but it is tough to judge a player's worth by runs scored and playoff numbers when he played on bad teams with bad players throughout most of his career. The Pros seem to outweigh the Cons in my opinion. Have to mention that this guy finished 2nd in the MVP voting twice while playing with far less then stellar teams and players.His stats are equivalent to 1st ballot HOFer Dave Winfield minus 200 hits and are far better than Tony Perez?

 

[Workhorse]

I think that Dale Murphy is just as deserving (if not MORE deserving) than Dawson.

(1) Career OPS+

Murphy - 121

Dawson - 119

(2) Leading the league

Murphy - 2x RBI, 2x HR, 4x Runs Created

Dawson - 1x RBI, 1x HR, 0x Runs Created

(3) Dawson's longer career allowed him to rack up HRs even when he was a useless major leaguer: The guy hit 61 HRs in his last 4 years when he was putting up an OPS+ around 90. That accounts for his HR lead over Murphy.

(4) Defensively, both guys were very good -- That's a wash.

(5) Already stated but Murphy put up his numbers with nobody else decent hitting around him (other than maybe 1-2 years of Bob Horner). Dawson hit in a lineup with Gary Carter and Tim Raines.

(6) 162 game average for each:

Murphy: .265/.346/.469, 30 HR, 94 RBI, 89 RS

Dawson: .279/.323./.482, 27 HR, 98 RBI, 85 RS

Dawson never put up a single OBP over .365 in his career. Dale Murphy beat that mark in 5 different seasons.

 

[oso diablo]

His stats are equivalent to 1st ballot HOFer Dave Winfield minus 200 hits and are far better than Tony Perez?

not really. Compared to Winfield, Dawson is short 296 runs, 336 hits (not just 200), 27 HR, 242 RBI, 627 walks, and 434 total bases. So in an extra ~1700 plate appearances, Winfield had almost 1000 more times on base. Winfield's OPS+ was 129, compared to Dawson's 119.You can make a closer comparison to Tony Perez, a marginal HOFer imo. In fact, they're very close comps. I just can't get past that 323 OBP. In every other respect, i'd be on board.

 

[Eephus]

Murphy is really hurt by the fact that his production fell off sharply after his age 31 season. If he had been able to sustain his prime by a couple of years, his career numbers would appear more impressive. It also would have helped if had still been in Atlanta when the Braves began their playoff streak.

I'd vote for Murphy ahead of either Rice or Dawson but don't think any of them have particularly strong cases for the HoF.

 

[MarshallRob]

Dawson winning the MVP in 1987 was a complete joke... There is no way he should have won it...

He was clearly the best player that year, but he played for a crappy team. I guess an argument could be made for Jack Clark with his 36 HR and 109 RBI or Tony Gwynn with his .370 BA, but who else was there? This was before you had 10 guys in each league hitting 40+ homers, so it wasn't like it could have gone either way. Dawson dominated that season in the middle of a crappy lineup.

Not saying that he should have won, but Dale Murphy put up better numbers except for HR/RBI and his team wasn't good either...

Year Ag Tm  Lg  G   AB	R	H   2B 3B  HR  RBI  SB CS  BB  SO   BA   OBP   SLG   TB   SH  SF IBB HBP GDP +--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+ 1987 31 ATL NL 159  566  115  167  27  1  44  105  16  6 115 136  .295  .417  .580  328   0   5  29   7  11  1987 32 CHC NL 153  621   90  178  24  2  49  137  11  3  32 103  .287  .328  .568  353   0   2   7   7  15

Ozzie Smith was the runner-up in the MVP voting that year and should have won it. Obviously Dawson was way ahead in RBI and HR's, but Ozzie had a higher batting average, a much-higher OBP, scored more runs, had more stolen bases, struck out many fewer times, won another Gold Glove at shortstop, and led his team to the pennant. Also, Dawson's numbers were clearly inflated by Wrigley Field. He hit .332 at home and .246 on the road.

 

[dagogrease]

His stats are equivalent to 1st ballot HOFer Dave Winfield minus 200 hits and are far better than Tony Perez?

not really. Compared to Winfield, Dawson is short 296 runs, 336 hits (not just 200), 27 HR, 242 RBI, 627 walks, and 434 total bases. So in an extra ~1700 plate appearances, Winfield had almost 1000 more times on base. Winfield's OPS+ was 129, compared to Dawson's 119.You can make a closer comparison to Tony Perez, a marginal HOFer imo. In fact, they're very close comps. I just can't get past that 323 OBP. In every other respect, i'd be on board.

I agree his OBP is not stellar but the rest of his numbers certainly compare with Winfield. As you say Winfield had ~1700 more ABs and only had 296 more runs, 336 more hits, 27 more HRs and 242 more RBIs and he was a first ballot HOFer. You have to take into account that by being a DH for the tail end of Winfield's career enabled him to get those extra 1700 ABs and collect 3000 hits. Also, by playing on better teams allowed him to get more ABs and more opportunities per game. Winfield is definitely deserving and I still see Dawson as comparable.

 

[dagogrease]

Murphy is really hurt by the fact that his production fell off sharply after his age 31 season. If he had been able to sustain his prime by a couple of years, his career numbers would appear more impressive. It also would have helped if had still been in Atlanta when the Braves began their playoff streak. I'd vote for Murphy ahead of either Rice or Dawson but don't think any of them have particularly strong cases for the HoF.

Just curious...do you believe that a player needs to have 3000 hits or 500 homeruns to get in?

 

[opticution]

Dawson is a pretty stellar example of a guy that had a great career, but not good enough to be in the HOF. He's a definition bubble guy that should probably stay on the outside looking in.

 

[oso diablo]

I agree his OBP is not stellar but the rest of his numbers certainly compare with Winfield. As you say Winfield had ~1700 more ABs and only had 296 more runs, 336 more hits, 27 more HRs and 242 more RBIs and he was a first ballot HOFer. You have to take into account that by being a DH for the tail end of Winfield's career enabled him to get those extra 1700 ABs and collect 3000 hits. Also, by playing on better teams allowed him to get more ABs and more opportunities per game. Winfield is definitely deserving and I still see Dawson as comparable.

actually, i said Winfield had 1700 more plate appearances, not ABs. He only had 1076 more ABs, getting 336 more hits, for a batting average of 312. Here's another interesting way to look at it...Winfield had Dawson's career PLUS a little over 2 seasons of this line:139 runs, 113 RBI, BA of 312, OBP of 565, OPS of 968.That's a HUGE difference.

 

[Eephus]

His stats are equivalent to 1st ballot HOFer Dave Winfield minus 200 hits and are far better than Tony Perez?

not really. Compared to Winfield, Dawson is short 296 runs, 336 hits (not just 200), 27 HR, 242 RBI, 627 walks, and 434 total bases. So in an extra ~1700 plate appearances, Winfield had almost 1000 more times on base. Winfield's OPS+ was 129, compared to Dawson's 119.You can make a closer comparison to Tony Perez, a marginal HOFer imo. In fact, they're very close comps. I just can't get past that 323 OBP. In every other respect, i'd be on board.

I agree his OBP is not stellar but the rest of his numbers certainly compare with Winfield. As you say Winfield had ~1700 more ABs and only had 296 more runs, 336 more hits, 27 more HRs and 242 more RBIs and he was a first ballot HOFer. You have to take into account that by being a DH for the tail end of Winfield's career enabled him to get those extra 1700 ABs and collect 3000 hits. Also, by playing on better teams allowed him to get more ABs and more opportunities per game. Winfield is definitely deserving and I still see Dawson as comparable.

It's not like Dawson had an abbreviated career. He played into his 40s. Winfield's advantages in career runs, hits, RBI and OPS aren't trivial. The Hawk's one (somewhat questionable) MVP award doesn't make up for those differences. You have to set the cut somewhere and Ithink it's somewhere between those guys.

 

[dagogrease]

I agree his OBP is not stellar but the rest of his numbers certainly compare with Winfield. As you say Winfield had ~1700 more ABs and only had 296 more runs, 336 more hits, 27 more HRs and 242 more RBIs and he was a first ballot HOFer. You have to take into account that by being a DH for the tail end of Winfield's career enabled him to get those extra 1700 ABs and collect 3000 hits. Also, by playing on better teams allowed him to get more ABs and more opportunities per game. Winfield is definitely deserving and I still see Dawson as comparable.

actually, i said Winfield had 1700 more plate appearances, not ABs. He only had 1076 more ABs, getting 336 more hits, for a batting average of 312. Here's another interesting way to look at it...Winfield had Dawson's career PLUS a little over 2 seasons of this line:139 runs, 113 RBI, BA of 312, OBP of 565, OPS of 968.That's a HUGE difference.

Ahhh. Good point...sorry I read that wrong. Probably here but the fact that Winfield was a DH for 3 or 4 years at the tail end of his career and basically had to just stand up a swing a bat 5 times a game helped him achieve those numbers a bit.

 

[dagogrease]

His stats are equivalent to 1st ballot HOFer Dave Winfield minus 200 hits and are far better than Tony Perez?

not really. Compared to Winfield, Dawson is short 296 runs, 336 hits (not just 200), 27 HR, 242 RBI, 627 walks, and 434 total bases. So in an extra ~1700 plate appearances, Winfield had almost 1000 more times on base. Winfield's OPS+ was 129, compared to Dawson's 119.You can make a closer comparison to Tony Perez, a marginal HOFer imo. In fact, they're very close comps. I just can't get past that 323 OBP. In every other respect, i'd be on board.

I agree his OBP is not stellar but the rest of his numbers certainly compare with Winfield. As you say Winfield had ~1700 more ABs and only had 296 more runs, 336 more hits, 27 more HRs and 242 more RBIs and he was a first ballot HOFer. You have to take into account that by being a DH for the tail end of Winfield's career enabled him to get those extra 1700 ABs and collect 3000 hits. Also, by playing on better teams allowed him to get more ABs and more opportunities per game. Winfield is definitely deserving and I still see Dawson as comparable.

It's not like Dawson had an abbreviated career. He played into his 40s. Winfield's advantages in career runs, hits, RBI and OPS aren't trivial. The Hawk's one (somewhat questionable) MVP award doesn't make up for those differences. You have to set the cut somewhere and Ithink it's somewhere between those guys.

No believe me, I understand...if you are waivering on a guy then he shouldn't be considered. I also think the Hall of Fame has been watered down a lot and should be limited to the elite of the elite. But there are some guys with the same or comparable numbers to Dawson that are in and I guess if you allow one in then you question why the others aren't in...as you can tell I was a fan of his.

 

[Dave Baker]

I understand the needs for comparison, but I've always felt like someone's abilities as a player should stand on their own. Either they're worthy of being a member of the HOF, or they're not. Doesn't matter whether 1 or 100 guys are in the HOF with lesser numbers. If that's the case, the only argument to make is that the others don't belong.

So comparing Dawson to Rice or Winfield or Parker or Babe Ruth for that matter doesn't mean diddly in my book.

Dawson's numbers are impressive, but I don't think he was as dominant as they suggest and don't think he's worthy of being in the HOF. Darn close though.

 

[Eephus]

Murphy is really hurt by the fact that his production fell off sharply after his age 31 season. If he had been able to sustain his prime by a couple of years, his career numbers would appear more impressive. It also would have helped if had still been in Atlanta when the Braves began their playoff streak. I'd vote for Murphy ahead of either Rice or Dawson but don't think any of them have particularly strong cases for the HoF.

Just curious...do you believe that a player needs to have 3000 hits or 500 homeruns to get in?

No, but it sure helps to convince a few on-the-fence voters.We have to accept that the selection process isn't purely quantitative. It's a combination of peak and career accomplishments. Some post-season heroics don't hurt. Neither does having a mystique surrounding the player. Murphy's case starts and pretty much ends with the two MVP awards. Sure, there are players with comparable statistics who are in the Hall. Duke Snider is #2 on Murphy's list of comps but the Duke has Murphy beat in the je ne sais quoi department.If Murphy had a couple more prime years or if his career had a more extended tail, he'd be given a lot more consideration. As it is, he's never come close to selection.

 

[Workhorse]

Murphy is really hurt by the fact that his production fell off sharply after his age 31 season. If he had been able to sustain his prime by a couple of years, his career numbers would appear more impressive. It also would have helped if had still been in Atlanta when the Braves began their playoff streak. I'd vote for Murphy ahead of either Rice or Dawson but don't think any of them have particularly strong cases for the HoF.

Just curious...do you believe that a player needs to have 3000 hits or 500 homeruns to get in?

No, but it sure helps to convince a few on-the-fence voters.We have to accept that the selection process isn't purely quantitative. It's a combination of peak and career accomplishments. Some post-season heroics don't hurt. Neither does having a mystique surrounding the player. Murphy's case starts and pretty much ends with the two MVP awards. Sure, there are players with comparable statistics who are in the Hall. Duke Snider is #2 on Murphy's list of comps but the Duke has Murphy beat in the je ne sais quoi department.If Murphy had a couple more prime years or if his career had a more extended tail, he'd be given a lot more consideration. As it is, he's never come close to selection.

And if you ARE going to compare players, you've really got to compare them to others in their era. The 1980s were a comparative "dead ball" era for power hitters. Fact is that guys like Murphy and Dawson were the most feared hitters (along with Schmidt) in the National League for close to a decade. Ditto Rice in the American League. Those guys were the giants of their time, but won't get the recognition that guys from the 90s will due to the overinflated pinball power numbers of that decade. Its a shame, really.

 

[oso diablo]

I understand the needs for comparison, but I've always felt like someone's abilities as a player should stand on their own. Either they're worthy of being a member of the HOF, or they're not. Doesn't matter whether 1 or 100 guys are in the HOF with lesser numbers. If that's the case, the only argument to make is that the others don't belong.

so on what basis does one decide if a player should be in the HOF or not? because the sum total of your arguments in these HOF discussions is that "if i think he's a HOFer, he should be in; if i don't, he shouldn't". That doesn't get us very far in understanding the decision to be made.I take the HOF for what it is, not for what i want it to be. That's why it is absolutely meaningful and fair to look at what other HOFers have done.Now, there are certainly other ways to approach the question, beyond nihilistic intuition. For example, Bill James outlines a series of questions to ask, which he terms the "Keltner List". It asks questions such as "was he ever considered the best player at his position?", "could this player lead his team to a title if he were the best player on that team?".

 

[Dave Baker]

I understand the needs for comparison, but I've always felt like someone's abilities as a player should stand on their own. Either they're worthy of being a member of the HOF, or they're not. Doesn't matter whether 1 or 100 guys are in the HOF with lesser numbers. If that's the case, the only argument to make is that the others don't belong.

so on what basis does one decide if a player should be in the HOF or not? because the sum total of your arguments in these HOF discussions is that "if i think he's a HOFer, he should be in; if i don't, he shouldn't". That doesn't get us very far in understanding the decision to be made.I take the HOF for what it is, not for what i want it to be. That's why it is absolutely meaningful and fair to look at what other HOFers have done.Now, there are certainly other ways to approach the question, beyond nihilistic intuition. For example, Bill James outlines a series of questions to ask, which he terms the "Keltner List". It asks questions such as "was he ever considered the best player at his position?", "could this player lead his team to a title if he were the best player on that team?".

I base it on their body of work. If you think the sum totals of my arguments in these HOF discussions is based only on a whimsical approach, you haven't been paying attention.First of all, I want the voters to have been fans and watched a player play countless times before being elgible to vote. They need to worship the game and follow it all daily. Far too many just glance back at numbers without understanding the actual player and all they did when with that team.Second of all, I want the HOF to be a select group of players that dominated his game, even if it happened to be only at a specific position (catcher, SS and third base are examples I've used in the past), WHILE they were playing. Therefore, I don't want to vote for someone that WHILE they were playing, nobody really thought the player was that dominant. They only realized they put up some good cumulative numbers after all was said and done. Not good enough for me.I don't mind comparisons, but comparisons to be made are against other players of their time. Did they dominant the landscape as compared to other players? Dominance includes how their numbers stack up against the others. Did they dominate for an extendeded period of time (i.e more than just a few years)? Did you ever tell yourself, "this player is by far better than almost any other player out there today" and you end up telling yourself that for upwards of a decade.The last thing the HOF needs is some quantifiable answer to whether a player belongs. It absolutely must be a subjective process. As a voter, it is indeed what you want it to be, NOT what it is. Otherwise, you find yourself voting for less qualified people simply because other less qualified players made it.

 

[oso diablo]

The last thing the HOF needs is some quantifiable answer to whether a player belongs. It absolutely must be a subjective process. As a voter, it is indeed what you want it to be, NOT what it is. Otherwise, you find yourself voting for less qualified people simply because other less qualified players made it.

good post. don't agree with everything, but well said.I'm not a voter, and don't approach these questions as a voter. My quest, at the risk of putting too strong a term out there, is to convey what the Hall of Fame IS. Sure, you can want it to be a different thing, but it is what it is. And the criteria for inclusion has never been as stringent as you are making it. Never. I think an actual voter has an obligation to understand the HOF. If you have to make a decision about whether Person A deserves to be in Group X, then you need to understand both Player A and Group X.As i've already noted in this thread, by looking at who is in, i am by no means a lowest common denominator selector. We agreed already that compounding mistakes is a mistake. And i reflexively ignore any argument that says simply "if player x got in, then player y should be in." Admittedly, my approach is similar in that it looks at other HOFs, but it is a superior approach to consider the totality of the players enshrined, rather than the worst of the players enshrined.P.S. If the threshold is "by far the best player for a decade", then we have a HOF the size of my office. With about 10 plaques.

 

[Eephus]

P.S. If the threshold is "by far the best player for a decade", then we have a HOF the size of my office. With about 10 plaques.

We'll see what happens five years after Bonds' retirement.

 

[Dave Baker]

The last thing the HOF needs is some quantifiable answer to whether a player belongs. It absolutely must be a subjective process. As a voter, it is indeed what you want it to be, NOT what it is. Otherwise, you find yourself voting for less qualified people simply because other less qualified players made it.

Sure, you can want it to be a different thing, but it is what it is.

I think we agree but are stating it in different ways. As a voter, you're only obligation is to consider whether a candidate should be included based on their own merits. NOT others.

 

[Statorama]

Close but no kewpie doll for Dawson. Rice? Yes.And I don't feel like restating my whole diatribe about how numbers don't mean as much as many think.

If Jim Rice played in any other ball park besides Fenway, he would have had about 25% less HRs on his career. Half his Fenway HRs. would have been high pop outs in any other ballpark.

Wait, you're serious.Forget it. This is an old and well traveled road. You just happen to be wrong. Rice dominated more than Dawson and the vast majority of those invovled in the game back then knew it.

Rice's stats, nearly across the board, were lower in clutch situations than his overall stats.

Well, except for the pesky "Hitting into Double Plays" one. It seemed like everytime I watched him in a clutch AB he'd roll one to the SS.

 

[Statorama]

Just poll 100 random people in Arkansas. I'd bet more of them knew who Andre Dawson was and what he did over Jim Rice. Doesn't that make him more (hall of) famous?

Not only do neither Rice nor Dawson belong in the hall, we need to start kicking some people out.

 

[Dave Baker]

The last thing the HOF needs is some quantifiable answer to whether a player belongs. It absolutely must be a subjective process. As a voter, it is indeed what you want it to be, NOT what it is. Otherwise, you find yourself voting for less qualified people simply because other less qualified players made it.

If the threshold is "by far the best player for a decade", then we have a HOF the size of my office. With about 10 plaques.

I don't think so. I said the player should be far better than almost any player. Then you find yourself saying the same thing year after year for upwards of a decade. At any one time, there could be 3-5-8 players that are included in this list any given year. Most of the time, using this ideology, you'd fine a lot more players in the HOF than your post indicates. Do I think there are too many in the HOF? Yes. As has been said countless times, it's more like the Hall of Very Good.I should be able to look at a player, WHILE they are playing, and say to myself "there is a legend right there, playing in front of me."

I said that when I watched Willie McCovey play. Same with Billy Williams, Willie Stargell, Johnny Bench, Carl Yasztremski, Joe Morgan, Tom Seaver. Reggie Jackson, Steve Carlton, Mike Schmidt. Fast forward to today and I saw it with Wade Boggs. I saw it with Jim Rice. Oddly enough, I saw it with Steve Garvey.

Do I see it with Andre Dawson? No. He was great. But I never thought I was watching one of the very best in the game when I was watching him play.

That doesn't mean I'm right, of course. It just means I wish others looked at it in similar fashion, instead of spending their time crunching numbers. It's pretty basic stuff, IMO, if you're as big a fan as I am. If you have to crunch numbers on the guy, he probably doesn't belong, at least not in your eyes.

 

[Dave Baker]

Well, except for the pesky "Hitting into Double Plays" one. It seemed like everytime I watched him in a clutch AB he'd roll one to the SS.

I remember this well. He hit into a TON of double plays. At least a part of this was due to the fact that he would crush the ball often and hit it to shortstop. His DPs were rarely on the right side of the infield.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

Can we move this to baseball?

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

Dawson is killed by the "Moneyball Era" voters. His OBP is bad but he wasn't asked to draw walks and it wasn't a big issue at the time. Dawson was a 5-tool player, rare for any era: hit for power/average, speed, glove and arm. Guys like Jim Rice didn't have these skills and Dale Murphy didn't have them long enough. People forget Dawson was a top shelf CF early on in Montreal. I think Dawson was one of the top 3-4 most feared hitters in the NL during the 80s, I'd put him in.

 

[Sea Bass]

Voted Trammel, Rice, and Dawson.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

Dawson is killed by the "Moneyball Era" voters. His OBP is bad but he wasn't asked to draw walks and it wasn't a big issue at the time. Dawson was a 5-tool player, rare for any era: hit for power/average, speed, glove and arm. Guys like Jim Rice didn't have these skills and Dale Murphy didn't have them long enough. People forget Dawson was a top shelf CF early on in Montreal. I think Dawson was one of the top 3-4 most feared hitters in the NL during the 80s, I'd put him in.

I agree, it simply wasn't a priority consideration at the time, and moreover, Andre came up in a time when you expanded your zone if you had a runner in scoring position to get the run in, not just walk at any cost. To me, he's a no brainer, because when I watched him, I thought I was watching a HOFer.

 

[pigskin pimp]

If Dawson didn't have that underrated decent player that nobody knows of because he plays in Montreal, to the FA signing of Chicago Cubs where he pelts an un-Dawson like 49 homers, this guy would be...

...just another guy.

Not HOF. If you want to put in guys because they were decent ballplayers and played a long time, Blyleven trumps Dawson. By a lot.

 

[guru_007]

If Dawson didn't have that underrated decent player that nobody knows of because he plays in Montreal, to the FA signing of Chicago Cubs where he pelts an un-Dawson like 49 homers, this guy would be...

...just another guy.

Not HOF. If you want to put in guys because they were decent ballplayers and played a long time, Blyleven trumps Dawson. By a lot.

Ridiculous statement.In 21 years, Dawson was an all-star 8 times, came in top 15 in MVP voting 6 times (winning 1, and 2 seconds), 8 time gold glover and 4 time silver slugger

In 22 years, Blyleven was a 2 time all-star, received cy young votes 4 times (zero wins, 2 thirds), and that's about it

Dawson at his best was way better than Blyleven. I respect Blyleven in that he pitched a lot of innings for a long time, but quite frankly making the all-star team only twice in his career speaks volumes about how his talent was viewed by others.

As for the original question posed, I'd vote Dawson for the HOF......way after Jim Rice. This year I'd vote:

Rice

Gossage

very strong consideration for Dawson and Morris