ESPN article about Andre Dawson's HOF worthiness...

[erik316wttn]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof07/news/story?id=2703632&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab2pos2

 

Andre was my all-time favorite player, even moreso than Sammy. This short article gives the pros and cons of his HOF worthiness. The writer is ultimately against his induction.

 

Had Andre started his career on grass instead of on turf, he'd have hit 500+ home runs and would already be in. He was about as complete a player as you could be in his prime.

[Garwilly]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof07/news/story?id=2703632&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab2pos2

 

Andre was my all-time favorite player, even moreso than Sammy. This short article gives the pros and cons of his HOF worthiness. The writer is ultimately against his induction.

 

Had Andre started his career on grass instead of on turf, he'd have hit 500+ home runs and would already be in. He was about as complete a player as you could be in his prime.

 

:?:

[Twiggy]

Hawk was a hell of a player but I think it will be hard for him to get into the HOF. Hope I'm wrong though.

[Tracer Bullet]

One writer is for and one is against. That's their thing.

 

I could go either way on Hawk. He was one of my favorite all time players. I think you could make a very good argument that he's hall-worthy, but he's not a slam dunk HOF'r in my mind.

[Stu]

That rocket arm.... I'll never forget that time as a Cub when he threw a guy out running to 1st base on a single to right. I've never seen that before. Anyone else remember that play?

[Banedon]

The writer that is against his induction doesn't even have a good reason though...he says Hawk's stats are there, and talks about all of his accomplishments, but ultimately says he thinks Hawk was merely great and not elite, but provides no reason whatsoever for that.

[Derwood]

The writer that is against his induction doesn't even have a good reason though...he says Hawk's stats are there, and talks about all of his accomplishments, but ultimately says he thinks Hawk was merely great and not elite, but provides no reason whatsoever for that.

 

In other words, he thinks like a HoF voter

[BigbadB]

How does Dawson compare to Winfield?

[Handlebar McSkullet]

When does the vet committee vote against santo again?

[Jehrico]

The writer that is against his induction doesn't even have a good reason though...he says Hawk's stats are there, and talks about all of his accomplishments, but ultimately says he thinks Hawk was merely great and not elite, but provides no reason whatsoever for that.

 

In other words, he thinks like a HoF voter

"never won a ring..."

[CardsFanInChiTown]

Corner OFers with a career line of .279/.323/.482 shouldn't make it.

[bhogg]

I've heard all the arguments against guys like Dawson, Rice, Murphy, etc.

 

I think they're bull.

 

I hear "it's the hall of fame, not the hall of very good." You're right, it is the Hall of Fame. However, since when is "fame" limited to the immortal type baseball gods like Ruth, Gherig, and Aaron?

 

I look at it this way. When I go (back) to the HoF, I want to see the greatest players from my youth. I want to see their plaque. I want to see their memorbelia, etc. Dawson is definitely one of those guys. I don't give a rat's ass what his VORP, OPS, LMNOP, XYZ is. The pitchers that feared Dawson didn't give a crap about that either.

 

In addition, inducting guys like Dawson and Rice would not take away a thing from the cream of the crop --- the Aaron's, Mantles, Mays, and Ruths of the hall. They're still the best. No one in their right mind would say otherwise. Regardless, the Hawk is one of baseballs all time greatest players ---- his peers would agree.

 

 

I know I'm in the minority, but I'm all for a more liberal HoF voter.

 

If I were a voter, I'd fill out the 10 spots as often as possible. This year, I'd vote for Gwynn, Ripken, Dawson, Rice, Gossage, T John, L Smith, Murphy, Blyleven, and Albert Belle.

[JC]

Dawson should get into the Hall for no other reason than his "Blank Contract" offer to become a Cub. The uniqueness of that move alone should qualify him.

 

That doesn't even take into account his other heroic feat of needing damn near the whole Padres roster to hold him back from beating Eric Show to death...

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I've heard all the arguments against guys like Dawson, Rice, Murphy, etc.

 

I think they're bull.

 

I hear "it's the hall of fame, not the hall of very good." You're right, it is the Hall of Fame. However, since when is "fame" limited to the immortal type baseball gods like Ruth, Gherig, and Aaron?

 

I look at it this way. When I go (back) to the HoF, I want to see the greatest players from my youth. I want to see their plaque. I want to see their memorbelia, etc. Dawson is definitely one of those guys. I don't give a rat's ass what his VORP, OPS, LMNOP, XYZ is. The pitchers that feared Dawson didn't give a crap about that either.

 

In addition, inducting guys like Dawson and Rice would not take away a thing from the cream of the crop --- the Aaron's, Mantles, Mays, and Ruths of the hall. They're still the best. No one in their right mind would say otherwise. Regardless, the Hawk is one of baseballs all time greatest players ---- his peers would agree.

 

 

I know I'm in the minority, but I'm all for a more liberal HoF voter.

 

If I were a voter, I'd fill out the 10 spots as often as possible. This year, I'd vote for Gwynn, Ripken, Dawson, Rice, Gossage, T John, L Smith, Murphy, Blyleven, and Albert Belle.

 

By 2010 we'd have to annex Greenland just to house the building.

 

Dawson is not one of baseball's all time greatest players. Not even close.

[JC]

I think a lot of the Dawson affection comes from us geezers (34?) who watched him play nearly every game on WGN. Much like Sammy Sosa, Dawson carried the Cubs on his back for inconceivable stretches when the rest of the team absolutely stunk. And, most of us will remember with fondness the quiet grace that he demonstrated while playing on insufferable teams.

 

Dawson really was a giant and, for people like me, perception no doubt clouds reality when it comes to Andre. I remember being in my dorm with a couple of guys and watching the games in Pittsburgh in 1991 when he blasted Grand Slams in back to back games, only to have the Cubs lose.

 

As such, I really don't have an interest in looking into his numbers too far when it comes to the Hall. (Truth be told, I think the HOF is a crock anyway, but that is another post in another thread). I'll gladly bear the schmuck standard for remembering Dawson's legacy just as it is, without the need for comparison. In this instance, I accept it as a simple guilty pleasure.

[bhogg]

If the HoF building were as large as Greenland, I'd pee my pants with excitement. As of now, the HoF is about the size of my broom closet :(

 

 

Just a thought, but what percentage of players do you guys think a HoF induction merits? 1% of all players. .. . 2%. . . 3%?

 

I have no idea how many guys have played the game up to this season, but it might be a cool thing to figure out. . . . .. someone may have done and I just don't know about it.

[jjgman21]

Corner OFers with a career line of .279/.323/.482 shouldn't make it.

 

nor should anyone with a career OPS+ of 87.

[JC]

Corner OFers with a career line of .279/.323/.482 shouldn't make it.

 

nor should anyone with a career OPS+ of 87.

 

Who belongs to that OPS+?

 

(Edit for clarification).

Edited December 29, 2006 by JC

[CardsFanInChiTown]

Corner OFers with a career line of .279/.323/.482 shouldn't make it.

 

nor should anyone with a career OPS+ of 87.

 

Whose OPS+ does that belong to?

 

Ozzie Smith.

 

 

Smith should be in the hall, he was a decent hitter for a SS of that era. I think you could make a better case against Lou Brock if you want to slam a Cardinal HOFer.

Edited December 29, 2006 by CardsFanInChiTown

[jjgman21]

Corner OFers with a career line of .279/.323/.482 shouldn't make it.

 

nor should anyone with a career OPS+ of 87.

 

Whose OPS+ does that belong to?

 

the Wizzard of Backflips

[jjgman21]

Corner OFers with a career line of .279/.323/.482 shouldn't make it.

 

nor should anyone with a career OPS+ of 87.

 

Whose OPS+ does that belong to?

 

Ozzie Smith.

 

 

jjgman21, notice I said corner OFers.

 

note I said "anyone."

 

even with those career numbers, Dawson was in the top 150 or so in career OPS+ in the history of baseball.

[jjgman21]

Corner OFers with a career line of .279/.323/.482 shouldn't make it.

 

nor should anyone with a career OPS+ of 87.

 

Whose OPS+ does that belong to?

 

Ozzie Smith.

 

 

Smith should be in the hall, he was a decent hitter for a SS of that era. I think you could make a better case against Lou Brock if you want to slam a Cardinal HOFer.

 

yeah, let's put Omar Vizquel in too. oh, but he lacks the most important element when comparing the two. backflips.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

I edited my post.

 

 

Anyway, 119+ is top 150 all-time? baseball-reference.com has #100 @ 136 - I doubt he's near 150.

 

Anyway who cares - he was a corner OFer. OPS+ doesn't take in to account a players position.

Edited December 29, 2006 by CardsFanInChiTown

[CardsFanInChiTown]

Corner OFers with a career line of .279/.323/.482 shouldn't make it.

 

nor should anyone with a career OPS+ of 87.

 

Whose OPS+ does that belong to?

 

Ozzie Smith.

 

 

Smith should be in the hall, he was a decent hitter for a SS of that era. I think you could make a better case against Lou Brock if you want to slam a Cardinal HOFer.

 

yeah, let's put Omar Vizquel in too. oh, but he lacks the most important element when comparing the two. backflips.

 

Start another thread on this subject if you'd like.

[jjgman21]

look, I don't think Dawson should be in, but

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/dawsoan01.shtml

 

dominant player in his era, period.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/smithoz01.shtml

 

not dominant player in any era, period.