Andre Dawson HOFer? (1 Viewer)

[MrPhoenix]

If it's between the two, Rice should get in before Dawson. Once Rice gets in, then and only then can an argument be made for Dawson.

My HOF ballet for 2008:

Goose Gossage

Jim Rice

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

If it's between the two, Rice should get in before Dawson. Once Rice gets in, then and only then can an argument be made for Dawson.My HOF ballet for 2008:Goose GossageJim Rice

I'm a big believer in the Hawk, but I can't disagree with this. It's actually crazy talk that Rice isn't in already, and this is from a Yankee fan. He was definatley one SOB you didn't want up with the game on the line. If Sutter is in, Goose is in, and while I'm not over the moon about either inclusion, I will hope he makes it.

 

[Eephus]

Choosing between one time teammates Dawson vs. Raines is another tough call. Dawson has better power numbers and was superior defensively. Rock was an outstanding leadoff man for OBP, SBs and SB%. Both fell short of the marquee career number (3000 H, 500 HR).

I still see Dawson and Raines as borderline HoF cases at best. Given the choice between the two, I'd give the nod to Raines because at his peak, he was one of the best leadoff men of the modern era. Unfortunately he was a contemporary of Rickey Henderson, which makes his accomplishments seem less impressive.

Neither has as strong a case as Ron Santo. I'd vote for Albert Belle before Jim Ed Rice.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

I'd vote for Albert Belle before Jim Ed Rice.

Extremely similar cases, I think Belle's career may have been a touch too short. I will give him points for it ending on an injury though, and I think there are worse guys in the HOF then either one of these too. Both probably the most feared hitter for a good stretch when they played.

 

[guru_007]

I'd vote for Albert Belle before Jim Ed Rice.

Extremely similar cases, I think Belle's career may have been a touch too short. I will give him points for it ending on an injury though, and I think there are worse guys in the HOF then either one of these too. Both probably the most feared hitter for a good stretch when they played.

Similar cases, sure. But still quite different era's. You can't compare a guy's stats in the late '90s with a guys stats in the late '70's imo.Belle had an awesome 7-year run. But between the fact his career was too short, and he was pretty universally regarded as an #######, he doesn't merit the same consideration that Jim Rice does...again imo.Not saying an interesting case for Belle couldn't be made, just saying putting him ahead of Rice is misguided.

 

[wilked]

no to Dawson, yes to Rice

 

[Eephus]

I'd vote for Albert Belle before Jim Ed Rice.

Extremely similar cases, I think Belle's career may have been a touch too short. I will give him points for it ending on an injury though, and I think there are worse guys in the HOF then either one of these too. Both probably the most feared hitter for a good stretch when they played.

Similar cases, sure. But still quite different era's. You can't compare a guy's stats in the late '90s with a guys stats in the late '70's imo.Belle had an awesome 7-year run. But between the fact his career was too short, and he was pretty universally regarded as an #######, he doesn't merit the same consideration that Jim Rice does...again imo.Not saying an interesting case for Belle couldn't be made, just saying putting him ahead of Rice is misguided.

I was using Joey as a strawman to counter arguments being made by Peter Gammons and others in support of Jim Rice.Abbreviated career: JR check, AB check"one of the most feared hitters of his time": JR check, AB checkFalls short of marquee career statistical milestones: JR check, AB checkGIDPs: JR double check, AB checkA bit of an #######: JR check, AB double checkI'm not buying the 70s vs. 90s argument. Belle's normalized stats are superior to Rice's. Rice only has three seasons with an OPS+ higher than Belle's career average. They're both close, Belle for peak value, Rice for a longer career but neither would make it into my HoF.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

I'd vote for Albert Belle before Jim Ed Rice.

Extremely similar cases, I think Belle's career may have been a touch too short. I will give him points for it ending on an injury though, and I think there are worse guys in the HOF then either one of these too. Both probably the most feared hitter for a good stretch when they played.

Similar cases, sure. But still quite different era's. You can't compare a guy's stats in the late '90s with a guys stats in the late '70's imo.Belle had an awesome 7-year run. But between the fact his career was too short, and he was pretty universally regarded as an #######, he doesn't merit the same consideration that Jim Rice does...again imo.Not saying an interesting case for Belle couldn't be made, just saying putting him ahead of Rice is misguided.

I was using Joey as a strawman to counter arguments being made by Peter Gammons and others in support of Jim Rice.Abbreviated career: JR check, AB check"one of the most feared hitters of his time": JR check, AB checkFalls short of marquee career statistical milestones: JR check, AB checkGIDPs: JR double check, AB checkA bit of an #######: JR check, AB double checkI'm not buying the 70s vs. 90s argument. Belle's normalized stats are superior to Rice's. Rice only has three seasons with an OPS+ higher than Belle's career average. They're both close, Belle for peak value, Rice for a longer career but neither would make it into my HoF.

Out of pure curiosity, what is the criteria for "normalized stats"? I think the process has been successful with human voters actually watching these guys play. Throwing out the roid issue, Palmiero is a 1st ballot HOF based on "numbers", but did you really feel during his career that he was a HOFer? I realize the vague qualifier of "pitcher fear" is not exactly a foundation for HOF voting, but I think its something that should be in consideration, and I never feared Raffy like Rice or Belle. 3 top 10 MVP finishes, 4 all star teams in 20 seasons. Nice career, but HOF worthy? Pitchers didn't live in fear of him, and it wasn't like he lived with the overwhelming support of fans or writers in his time. Hell, was there ever a season he was the best 1b in the league? And I throw him out there because he springs to mind, but I'm sure I could come up with others. These guys, in admittedly diminished windows, at least had clear seasons where they weren't only the best sticks in at their position or in the league, but all of baseball.

 

[Anarchy99]

Here is an explanation of neutralized stats . . .LINK

For some of the names listed in this thread, here are their neutralized season numbers. Since they are normalized, a single year comparison compares an equivalent for all plaers.

Palmiero

.287 AVG

.368 OBP

.509 SLG

.877 OPS

112 Runs Created

32 HR

101 RBI

92 Runs

172 Hits

Career totals of 3068 hits, 568 HR, 1800 RBI)

Dawson

.288 AVG

.333 OBP

.498 SLG

.831 OPS

102 Runs Created

28 HR

103 RBI

90 Runs

179 Hits

Career totals of 3004 hits, 477 HR, 1728 RBI)

Rice

.298 AVG

.352 OBP

.501 SLG

.853 OPS

113 Runs Created

29 HR

111 RBI

96 Runs

191 Hits

Career totals of 2531 hits, 391 HR, 1476 RBI)

Belle

.294 AVG

.368 OBP

.563 SLG

.931 OPS

128 Runs Created

40 HR

127 RBI

100 Runs

181 Hits

Career totals of 1788 hits, 395 HR, 1256 RBI)

Dale Murphy

.269 AVG

.350 OBP

.474 SLG

.824 OPS

100 Runs Created

30 HR

96 RBI

91 Runs

160 Hits

Career totals of 2209 hits, 413 HR, 1333 RBI)

 

[Keys Myaths]

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

Huh? Those stats listed above, or all stats?Baseball isn't football. Nearly everything is individual. It's an easy thing to quantify just how good a player was.

 

[Dexter Manley]

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.

I would argue Darryl Strawberry was more feared as a hitter than any of these guys. And he played in a pitcher's park. And he was extremely clutch in the postseason, where as Dawson was a complete choker in the playoffs (IIRC the Hawk has the same # of postseason HR's as I do).Obviously Strawberry doesn't have the #'s to be considered for the HOF since he used recreational drugs instead of performance enhancing drugs, but if you watched both Strawberry and Dawson play, it was clear that Strawberry was the superior player. Dawson was a very nice player, but he has no business being in the HOF, imo.

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

Just my two cents here, but as much as I love the Hawk, I don't think his body allowed him to do enough to get in. He was a good enough player - one of the best actually. If he had played his whole career at Wrigley he would have been a first ballot HOFer. If I had a vote I would probably vote for him (as a Cubs fan). As a baseball fan I just don't think I could justify it.

Congratulations for being in the conversation Hawk. I enjoyed watching you play, especially the cannon. Thanks for the memories and good luck!

 

[jasonbay]

Yes, ESPN had a article where he was top 5 in a certain in several categories and the rest of the top 5 in those were already in

 

[Dave Baker]

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

Huh? Those stats listed above, or all stats?Baseball isn't football. Nearly everything is individual. It's an easy thing to quantify just how good a player was.

Interesting that you quoted a post of mine from over a year ago, so I had to review the entire thread. I think I already answered your question above pretty clearly if you kept reading.And, no, it isn't easy to quantify dominance when comparing players from different eras.Watching Rice play, year in and year out, you knew dominance when you saw it. He commanded games in a greater fashion than did Dawson. When watching Rice, you knew you were watching greatness. He was probably the most feared overall hitter for a decade (note: not every year, but over the span).Those are signs of a Hall of Famer, not someone just very good.

 

[Eephus]

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

Huh? Those stats listed above, or all stats?Baseball isn't football. Nearly everything is individual. It's an easy thing to quantify just how good a player was.

Interesting that you quoted a post of mine from over a year ago, so I had to review the entire thread. I think I already answered your question above pretty clearly if you kept reading.And, no, it isn't easy to quantify dominance when comparing players from different eras.Watching Rice play, year in and year out, you knew dominance when you saw it. He commanded games in a greater fashion than did Dawson. When watching Rice, you knew you were watching greatness. He was probably the most feared overall hitter for a decade (note: not every year, but over the span).Those are signs of a Hall of Famer, not someone just very good.

Unless you lived in Montreal during the early 80s, you probably didn't get to see a lot of Dawson in his prime. I know I didn't. By the time he had a bigger audience in Chicago, he was a shadow of his former self. He could still hit for power but his knee problems had robbed him of much of the speed that was a big part of what made him the Hawk.That being said, Rice's strong showings in MVP voting is the best way to quantify contemporary public opinion of a player. Rice's 3.15 MVP shares is considerably higher than Dawson's 2.36, but is slightly below Dave Parker's 3.19 shares. I don't think Rice or Parker deserve induction.

 

[Dave Baker]

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

Huh? Those stats listed above, or all stats?Baseball isn't football. Nearly everything is individual. It's an easy thing to quantify just how good a player was.

Interesting that you quoted a post of mine from over a year ago, so I had to review the entire thread. I think I already answered your question above pretty clearly if you kept reading.And, no, it isn't easy to quantify dominance when comparing players from different eras.Watching Rice play, year in and year out, you knew dominance when you saw it. He commanded games in a greater fashion than did Dawson. When watching Rice, you knew you were watching greatness. He was probably the most feared overall hitter for a decade (note: not every year, but over the span).Those are signs of a Hall of Famer, not someone just very good.

Unless you lived in Montreal during the early 80s, you probably didn't get to see a lot of Dawson in his prime. I know I didn't. By the time he had a bigger audience in Chicago, he was a shadow of his former self. He could still hit for power but his knee problems had robbed him of much of the speed that was a big part of what made him the Hawk.

Valid and solid opinions, although he arguably had his biggest and best years (specfically his first with the Cubs) post Montreal and even then (and I am a Cubs fan), I didn't think he had dominance like Rice.

 

[Dave Baker]

Rice's strong showings in MVP voting is the best way to quantify contemporary public opinion of a player. Rice's 3.15 MVP shares is considerably higher than Dawson's 2.36, but is slightly below Dave Parker's 3.19 shares. I don't think Rice or Parker deserve induction.

Showings in MVP is a good way to quantify, and perhaps the best, but there are plenty of variables to determine overall dominance.As for Parker, I loved the guy but I don't think he was as dominant a hitter as Rice. He was clearly a better fielder and had a gun out there in right. But I still have Rice clearly ahead of Parker in my eyes.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

I think most in the fantasy realm tend to focus on offensive statistics, where arguably Jim Rice put up better numbers than Dawson. But remember Rice was a DH for 530 games, roughly 25% of his career! Dawson won 8 Gold Gloves. As a NL fan I am probably biased but I believe Dawson was one of the top 2-3 most complete players in baseball in the 80s. Rice was "just" a very good hitter.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

I think Rice, Dawson, and Murphy all belong. Along with Schmidt, they were probably the best offensive weapons of the 1980s. Dawson and Murphy were great fielders too (Murphy had maybe the best arm I've ever seen.)

 

[Anarchy99]

I think Rice, Dawson, and Murphy all belong. Along with Schmidt, they were probably the best offensive weapons of the 1980s. Dawson and Murphy were great fielders too (Murphy had maybe the best arm I've ever seen.)

The problem with Murphy is that when he was good he was excepetional, but when he wasn't good he was terrible.In years where he had 100 games played, he had seasons batting:.226, .247, .226, .228, .245, and .252That's 6 years that were just plain mediocre (or worse). That's over 850 games of being a batting average vacuum. He only ended up wth a career .265 average.

 

[Keys Myaths]

Yes, ESPN had a article where he was top 5 in a certain in several categories and the rest of the top 5 in those were already in

Good debate in this thread, but this is the worst post in it.Cherry-picking random statistics isn't going to work. Either give me the entire picture, or a stat that encapsulates the entire picture (OPS+, WARP-3, etc.).