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

[CuseCubFan69]

The thing that makes Andre better than the Rice types is that he could run the bases and play good defense. I don't understand why these things get discounted so easily when it comes to voting for the Hall.

[Tracer Bullet]

this is very similar to the jim rice argument. everyone who saw him play or was a fan of him insists that he was the one of the most feared hitters of his era and was one of the top players for a 10 year stretch. but when you look at his stats, yeah he was good, but people tended to exaggerate his dominance.

 

same with dawson. when i was a kid, i thought he was awesome and he was one of my favorite players. if you asked me as a kid who the best hitter was, i probably would have put dawson at the top of the list. (i also probably would have insisted that shawon dunston is one of the best shortstops in the league, so there you go.) now looking at his stats, he was a very good player, but it looks like people exaggerate his dominance.

 

This is exactly my point. I don't think it's a matter of people exaggerating his stats, I think it's a matter of perspective. I just spent a few minutes on baseballreference. In his 10 or so prime years, Dawson was in the top 10 in the NL in OPS 6 times (I don't know where his OPS fell in the other years).

 

So you look and say "his OPS was X - that's not great." Well, in his era, an OPS in the .850-.900 range frequently was top 10 in the NL. If you limit it to OFs (take away Jack Clark, Will Clark, Schmidt), he was even better, relative to his peers. If you want to judge every player based on today's standards, no one from the late 70s through early 90s is getting in. Whether it was just a down period for offensive stats or it was lack of steroids or whatever, I don't know. In the late 90s, there were frequently 4 or 5 guys in the NL with an OPS over 1.000. Does that mean if you never had an OPS of 1.000 in the 80s you weren't dominant?

 

And this isn't a Jim Rice argument. I've only seen one poster here argue fear as a reason Dawson should get in. People arguing for him are saying Dawson was elite during his time. People arguing against him seem to be saying his stats don't add up. By today's standards, maybe not, but compared to other hitters in his time, I think Dawson's in.

[goonys evil twin]

this is very similar to the jim rice argument. everyone who saw him play or was a fan of him insists that he was the one of the most feared hitters of his era and was one of the top players for a 10 year stretch. but when you look at his stats, yeah he was good, but people tended to exaggerate his dominance.

 

same with dawson. when i was a kid, i thought he was awesome and he was one of my favorite players. if you asked me as a kid who the best hitter was, i probably would have put dawson at the top of the list. (i also probably would have insisted that shawon dunston is one of the best shortstops in the league, so there you go.) now looking at his stats, he was a very good player, but it looks like people exaggerate his dominance.

 

This is exactly my point. I don't think it's a matter of people exaggerating his stats, I think it's a matter of perspective. I just spent a few minutes on baseballreference. In his 10 or so prime years, Dawson was in the top 10 in the NL in OPS 6 times (I don't know where his OPS fell in the other years).

 

So you look and say "his OPS was X - that's not great." Well, in his era, an OPS in the .850-.900 range frequently was top 10 in the NL. If you limit it to OFs (take away Jack Clark, Will Clark, Schmidt), he was even better, relative to his peers. If you want to judge every player based on today's standards, no one from the late 70s through early 90s is getting in. Whether it was just a down period for offensive stats or it was lack of steroids or whatever, I don't know. In the late 90s, there were frequently 4 or 5 guys in the NL with an OPS over 1.000. Does that mean if you never had an OPS of 1.000 in the 80s you weren't dominant?

 

And this isn't a Jim Rice argument. I've only seen one poster here argue fear as a reason Dawson should get in. People arguing for him are saying Dawson was elite during his time. People arguing against him seem to be saying his stats don't add up. By today's standards, maybe not, but compared to other hitters in his time, I think Dawson's in.

 

Your defense certainly doesn't defend the notion that he was elite during his time. It says he was really good for a few years but never elite.

[Tracer Bullet]

this is very similar to the jim rice argument. everyone who saw him play or was a fan of him insists that he was the one of the most feared hitters of his era and was one of the top players for a 10 year stretch. but when you look at his stats, yeah he was good, but people tended to exaggerate his dominance.

 

same with dawson. when i was a kid, i thought he was awesome and he was one of my favorite players. if you asked me as a kid who the best hitter was, i probably would have put dawson at the top of the list. (i also probably would have insisted that shawon dunston is one of the best shortstops in the league, so there you go.) now looking at his stats, he was a very good player, but it looks like people exaggerate his dominance.

 

This is exactly my point. I don't think it's a matter of people exaggerating his stats, I think it's a matter of perspective. I just spent a few minutes on baseballreference. In his 10 or so prime years, Dawson was in the top 10 in the NL in OPS 6 times (I don't know where his OPS fell in the other years).

 

So you look and say "his OPS was X - that's not great." Well, in his era, an OPS in the .850-.900 range frequently was top 10 in the NL. If you limit it to OFs (take away Jack Clark, Will Clark, Schmidt), he was even better, relative to his peers. If you want to judge every player based on today's standards, no one from the late 70s through early 90s is getting in. Whether it was just a down period for offensive stats or it was lack of steroids or whatever, I don't know. In the late 90s, there were frequently 4 or 5 guys in the NL with an OPS over 1.000. Does that mean if you never had an OPS of 1.000 in the 80s you weren't dominant?

 

And this isn't a Jim Rice argument. I've only seen one poster here argue fear as a reason Dawson should get in. People arguing for him are saying Dawson was elite during his time. People arguing against him seem to be saying his stats don't add up. By today's standards, maybe not, but compared to other hitters in his time, I think Dawson's in.

 

Your defense certainly doesn't defend the notion that he was elite during his time. It says he was really good for a few years but never elite.

 

Really? I might have missed someone, but by my rough count, from 80-90 only 1 guy was in the top 10 in OPS in the NL more times than Dawson (Schmidt). Dawson was not the best hitter during his prime (if we assume 80-90 was his prime, which I think is true). Is finishing in the top 10 in OPS more times than all but 1 player during your prime "elite"? I think you could make the argument that it is.

 

Roll in defense and base-running and he was one of the best players in the NL during his best 10 years.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

As I pointed out earlier, if there's a place in the HOF for Lou Brock, surely there should be one for Dawson.

 

Ugh, I couldn't stay out of this thread. Brock shouldn't be in the HOF therefore he shouldn't be a baseline for HOF OFers going forward.

 

But the fact is, he is in the HOF. We can't remove those already enshrined, so the fact they are is relevant. Dawson if enshrined would not lower the caliber of player in the HOF.

 

No, Dawson doesn't merit mention with the best or even an average HOF. But he is of the level of the lowest group of HOF player, as his comparison to Brock. Dawson likely was better offensively and defensively than Brock. If Brock is a HOFer (and he is), Dawson should be as well.

 

If we can't compare him to current HOF, then compare him to players of his generation. Dawson surely makes the Hall on that standard.

[Soul]

As I pointed out earlier, if there's a place in the HOF for Lou Brock, surely there should be one for Dawson.

 

Ugh, I couldn't stay out of this thread. Brock shouldn't be in the HOF therefore he shouldn't be a baseline for HOF OFers going forward.

 

But the fact is, he is in the HOF. We can't remove those already enshrined, so the fact they are is relevant. Dawson if enshrined would not lower the caliber of player in the HOF.

 

No, Dawson doesn't merit mention with the best or even an average HOF. But he is of the level of the lowest group of HOF player, as his comparison to Brock. Dawson likely was better offensively and defensively than Brock. If Brock is a HOFer (and he is), Dawson should be as well.

 

If we can't compare him to current HOF, then compare him to players of his generation. Dawson surely makes the Hall on that standard.

 

Maz is in. Therefore, Izzy should go.

 

Maz:

 

.260 .299 .367

 

Izzy:

 

.259 .295 .336

 

 

Oh wait. Damn. Izzy can't quite slug at a hall of fame level!

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

As I pointed out earlier, if there's a place in the HOF for Lou Brock, surely there should be one for Dawson.

 

Ugh, I couldn't stay out of this thread. Brock shouldn't be in the HOF therefore he shouldn't be a baseline for HOF OFers going forward.

 

But the fact is, he is in the HOF. We can't remove those already enshrined, so the fact they are is relevant. Dawson if enshrined would not lower the caliber of player in the HOF.

 

No, Dawson doesn't merit mention with the best or even an average HOF. But he is of the level of the lowest group of HOF player, as his comparison to Brock. Dawson likely was better offensively and defensively than Brock. If Brock is a HOFer (and he is), Dawson should be as well.

 

If we can't compare him to current HOF, then compare him to players of his generation. Dawson surely makes the Hall on that standard.

 

Maz is in. Therefore, Izzy should go.

 

Maz:

 

.260 .299 .367

 

Izzy:

 

.259 .295 .336

 

 

Oh wait. Damn. Izzy can't quite slug at a hall of fame level!

 

But Izzy isn't among the best players or SS of his generation is he? No, he's not. Dawson was among the best players of his generation and his numbers are equivalent with other HOFers.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

The thing that makes Andre better than the Rice types is that he could run the bases and play good defense. I don't understand why these things get discounted so easily when it comes to voting for the Hall.

 

FWIW BP weighs in on his defense:

 

His Gold Gloves are largely unearned; he was just 12 runs above average in center for his career, and four below in right field.

 

Link

[CardsFanInChiTown]

this is very similar to the jim rice argument. everyone who saw him play or was a fan of him insists that he was the one of the most feared hitters of his era and was one of the top players for a 10 year stretch. but when you look at his stats, yeah he was good, but people tended to exaggerate his dominance.

 

same with dawson. when i was a kid, i thought he was awesome and he was one of my favorite players. if you asked me as a kid who the best hitter was, i probably would have put dawson at the top of the list. (i also probably would have insisted that shawon dunston is one of the best shortstops in the league, so there you go.) now looking at his stats, he was a very good player, but it looks like people exaggerate his dominance.

 

This is exactly my point. I don't think it's a matter of people exaggerating his stats, I think it's a matter of perspective. I just spent a few minutes on baseballreference. In his 10 or so prime years, Dawson was in the top 10 in the NL in OPS 6 times (I don't know where his OPS fell in the other years).

 

So you look and say "his OPS was X - that's not great." Well, in his era, an OPS in the .850-.900 range frequently was top 10 in the NL. If you limit it to OFs (take away Jack Clark, Will Clark, Schmidt), he was even better, relative to his peers. If you want to judge every player based on today's standards, no one from the late 70s through early 90s is getting in. Whether it was just a down period for offensive stats or it was lack of steroids or whatever, I don't know. In the late 90s, there were frequently 4 or 5 guys in the NL with an OPS over 1.000. Does that mean if you never had an OPS of 1.000 in the 80s you weren't dominant?

 

And this isn't a Jim Rice argument. I've only seen one poster here argue fear as a reason Dawson should get in. People arguing for him are saying Dawson was elite during his time. People arguing against him seem to be saying his stats don't add up. By today's standards, maybe not, but compared to other hitters in his time, I think Dawson's in.

 

Your defense certainly doesn't defend the notion that he was elite during his time. It says he was really good for a few years but never elite.

 

Really? I might have missed someone, but by my rough count, from 80-90 only 1 guy was in the top 10 in OPS in the NL more times than Dawson (Schmidt). Dawson was not the best hitter during his prime (if we assume 80-90 was his prime, which I think is true). Is finishing in the top 10 in OPS more times than all but 1 player during your prime "elite"? I think you could make the argument that it is.

 

Roll in defense and base-running and he was one of the best players in the NL during his best 10 years.

 

Those are arbitrary dates. Besides OPS obscures his biggest problem - OBP. Only twice in his career he was in the top 10 of VORP (81 and 83).

 

 

He was a very good player but not elite.

[RockTheIvy]

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

 

Remember though, Dawson played almost half of his games in CF.

[Tracer Bullet]

The thing that makes Andre better than the Rice types is that he could run the bases and play good defense. I don't understand why these things get discounted so easily when it comes to voting for the Hall.

 

FWIW BP weighs in on his defense:

 

His Gold Gloves are largely unearned; he was just 12 runs above average in center for his career, and four below in right field.

 

Link

 

I don't know how exactly they calculated that, but at least for his years in RF, using career numbers (which would include about 3.5 years worth of games when he was 35+ and had no knees) again doesn't seem like the best way to judge his defense. Even assuming defense statistics accurately measure defense, I'd like to know how good he was the 2 years he won GG in RF.

 

Besides, it's not like he's an Ozzie Smith. We're not talking about a below-average offensive player trying to get in almost entirely on defensive merit. Maybe he was a great defender for 10 years, maybe he was great sometimes and good other times. But I think supporters are saying that you combine good/great defense with his great hitting and he is Hall-worthy.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

The thing that makes Andre better than the Rice types is that he could run the bases and play good defense. I don't understand why these things get discounted so easily when it comes to voting for the Hall.

 

FWIW BP weighs in on his defense:

 

His Gold Gloves are largely unearned; he was just 12 runs above average in center for his career, and four below in right field.

 

Link

 

I don't know how exactly they calculated that, but at least for his years in RF, using career numbers (which would include about 3.5 years worth of games when he was 35+ and had no knees) again doesn't seem like the best way to judge his defense. Even assuming defense statistics accurately measure defense, I'd like to know how good he was the 2 years he won GG in RF.

 

Besides, it's not like he's an Ozzie Smith. We're not talking about a below-average offensive player trying to get in almost entirely on defensive merit. Maybe he was a great defender for 10 years, maybe he was great sometimes and good other times. But I think supporters are saying that you combine good/great defense with his great hitting and he is Hall-worthy.

 

I guess we perceive his value differently, to me he's an average defender and a very good hitter.

 

I certainly respect your opinion. He was an exciting player to watch.

[Tracer Bullet]

Really? I might have missed someone, but by my rough count, from 80-90 only 1 guy was in the top 10 in OPS in the NL more times than Dawson (Schmidt). Dawson was not the best hitter during his prime (if we assume 80-90 was his prime, which I think is true). Is finishing in the top 10 in OPS more times than all but 1 player during your prime "elite"? I think you could make the argument that it is.

 

Roll in defense and base-running and he was one of the best players in the NL during his best 10 years.

 

Those are arbitrary dates. Besides OPS obscures his biggest problem - OBP. Only twice in his career he was in the top 10 of VORP (81 and 83).

 

 

He was a very good player but not elite.

 

Arbitrary? No. I choose his prime years. He played 20 years. I think it's fair to look at his prime (it's not like I'm picking 2/3 years). For the 10 or so-year stretch that was Dawson's prime, he was one of the top hitters in the NL. It happens that his prime was about 1980-1990. I didn't pick those years b/c it was easy, I looked at his stats and estimated that it was his prime (also his age 25-35 years, which makes sense, I think).

 

Yes, his biggest problem, other than knees, was OBP. His career OBP was bad. But again, if you're looking at a guy who played 21 seasons, I don't think it's fair to look at a career percentage stat. In his prime (1980-1990) he had 3 bad OBP years (around .300 - also happened to be the years when he missed quite a few games) and a few ok ones and 3-4 good ones (.350 +). He was never the greatest at getting on base, but he wasn't always bad either. It's odd b/c his OBP, even in his prime, swung from .300 one year to .350+ the next. In those 7-8 years when his OBP was .330 or higher, he was great.

[Tracer Bullet]

The thing that makes Andre better than the Rice types is that he could run the bases and play good defense. I don't understand why these things get discounted so easily when it comes to voting for the Hall.

 

FWIW BP weighs in on his defense:

 

His Gold Gloves are largely unearned; he was just 12 runs above average in center for his career, and four below in right field.

 

Link

 

I don't know how exactly they calculated that, but at least for his years in RF, using career numbers (which would include about 3.5 years worth of games when he was 35+ and had no knees) again doesn't seem like the best way to judge his defense. Even assuming defense statistics accurately measure defense, I'd like to know how good he was the 2 years he won GG in RF.

 

Besides, it's not like he's an Ozzie Smith. We're not talking about a below-average offensive player trying to get in almost entirely on defensive merit. Maybe he was a great defender for 10 years, maybe he was great sometimes and good other times. But I think supporters are saying that you combine good/great defense with his great hitting and he is Hall-worthy.

 

I guess we perceive his value differently, to me he's an average defender and a very good hitter.

 

I certainly respect your opinion. He was an exciting player to watch.

 

Maybe you're right about his defense. I don't put much weight into defensive metrics b/c I'm just not yet convinced that they're accurate. I thought he was great defensively (I admit to some bias) and he won a lot of GG. Does everyone deserve their GG? Not at all, the voting is terrible. But I think he was at least good defensively. At the very least, his defense in the 80s shouldn't take away from his credentials. How much it improves them is something about which reasonable people can disagree.

[Guest]

One interesting way to look at player performance is to look at value added / out. This places emphasis both on the positive qualities a player provides as well as the negative. Dawson made an awful lot of outs in his career.

 

I actually prefer Tim Raines for the HOF over Dawson.

[Guest]

Maybe you're right about his defense. I don't put much weight into defensive metrics b/c I'm just not yet convinced that they're accurate. I thought he was great defensively (I admit to some bias) and he won a lot of GG. Does everyone deserve their GG? Not at all, the voting is terrible. But I think he was at least good defensively. At the very least, his defense in the 80s shouldn't take away from his credentials. How much it improves them is something about which reasonable people can disagree.

OF's with great arms get consistently overrated defensively, even though range is a much bigger deal than arm strength.

[Tracer Bullet]

One interesting way to look at player performance is to look at value added / out. This places emphasis both on the positive qualities a player provides as well as the negative. Dawson made an awful lot of outs in his career.

 

I actually prefer Tim Raines for the HOF over Dawson.

 

I fully support Raines for HOF as well. I think people in that era generally are underappreciated (including Raines, Trammell, and Dawson). Dawson made a lot of outs in his career-no doubt. But in his prime, he made fewer outs and created a ton of runs too.

[Guest]

One interesting way to look at player performance is to look at value added / out. This places emphasis both on the positive qualities a player provides as well as the negative. Dawson made an awful lot of outs in his career.

 

I actually prefer Tim Raines for the HOF over Dawson.

 

I fully support Raines for HOF as well. I think people in that era generally are underappreciated (including Raines, Trammell, and Dawson). Dawson made a lot of outs in his career-no doubt. But in his prime, he made fewer outs and created a ton of runs too.

Even his production / out in his prime years wasn't equivalent to others of his era.

[Stu]

OF's with great arms get consistently overrated defensively, even though range is a much bigger deal than arm strength.

 

Excellent point. Probably because of the wow factor. Everyone remembers Roberto Clemente nailing that runner at third in the '72 World Series at Baltimore. Everyone remembers seeing Dave Parker nail the guy at home in the All Star Game in Seattle. Both were spectatular, jaw-dropping throws.

Edited December 29, 2006 by Stu

[Tracer Bullet]

One interesting way to look at player performance is to look at value added / out. This places emphasis both on the positive qualities a player provides as well as the negative. Dawson made an awful lot of outs in his career.

 

I actually prefer Tim Raines for the HOF over Dawson.

 

I fully support Raines for HOF as well. I think people in that era generally are underappreciated (including Raines, Trammell, and Dawson). Dawson made a lot of outs in his career-no doubt. But in his prime, he made fewer outs and created a ton of runs too.

Even his production / out in his prime years wasn't equivalent to others of his era.

 

I don't really follow what you mean by production/out, so it is difficult to debate that with you.

[Guest]

One interesting way to look at player performance is to look at value added / out. This places emphasis both on the positive qualities a player provides as well as the negative. Dawson made an awful lot of outs in his career.

 

I actually prefer Tim Raines for the HOF over Dawson.

 

I fully support Raines for HOF as well. I think people in that era generally are underappreciated (including Raines, Trammell, and Dawson). Dawson made a lot of outs in his career-no doubt. But in his prime, he made fewer outs and created a ton of runs too.

Even his production / out in his prime years wasn't equivalent to others of his era.

 

I don't really follow what you mean by production/out, so it is difficult to debate that with you.

A simplistic example would be total bases / outs. Runs Created in 27 outs (RC27) is a more sophisticated example where the denominator is based on outs.

[CuseCubFan69]

 

Excellent point. Probably because of the wow factor. Everyone remembers Roberto Clemente nailing that runner at third in the '72 World Series at Baltimore. Everyone remembers seeing Dave Parker nail the guy at home in the All Star Game in Seattle. Both were spectatular, jaw-dropping throws.

 

That quote has to be the finest thing I've ever read from Tim!

[NoDak]

He was a very good player but not elite.

 

I think this is probably the issue here. Not so much "is player x worthy of the HOF or is he a card carrying member of the 'hall of Good.'" What separates the "very good" from the "elite" and how is that distinction made. What makes player A "elite" while player B is merely "very good"?

 

Also, I agree we cannot simply elect everyone to the hall that is "better" than the worst member of the hall. This is a faulty logic and simply punishes the hall for its past mistakes. I think that Brock was elected partly (read: largely) on basis of his 3023 hits. He achieved a "magic number" for hits.

[Abe Frohman]

Andre Dawson is HOF worthy - and I do not see where the great debate is. Outside of statistics, Dawson was one of the best players of his time. He was a class act, and respected by everyone that I know about.

 

Statistically:

 

* 1977 NL Rookie of the Year.

* 1987 NL MVP (on a last place team, which is notable, twice finishing 2nd).

* 8 time All-Star.

* 8 time Gold Glove winner (6 years in a row - 1980-1985, 87 & 88).

* 4 Silver Slugger Awards.

* 2774 career hits (#45 ALL TIME).

* 1373 career runs (#85 ALL TIME).

* 4787 career total bases (#24 ALL TIME).

* 503 career doubles (#42 ALL TIME).

* 438 career HR (#35 ALL TIME).

* 1591 career RBI (#29 ALL TIME).

* 314 career SB.

* 1039 career extra base hits (#22 ALL TIME).

* 118 career sacrifice flies (#9 ALL TIME).

* 365.8 career Power/Speed rating (#6 ALL TIME).

 

When you consider ALL of the players honored with induction into the HOF, and recognize that Andre Dawson is amoung the top 35 ALL TIME in categories such as HR, RBI, total bases, xtra base hits, and lump in his 8 Gold Gloves, 8 All-Star appearances - I just don't see where the arguement is, and why Dawson is not already in the HOF.

[cfeedback]

Andre Dawson is HOF worthy - and I do not see where the great debate is. Outside of statistics, Dawson was one of the best players of his time. He was a class act, and respected by everyone that I know about.

 

I read earlier in this thread that their was a big difference between older (favoring) and younger fans (against) Dawson in the HOF. I love Moneyball/Bill James/sabermetrics as much as anyone, but I simply can't see the argument that Dawson WASN'T one of the best players of his era. If that's the case, then there's virtually no one from the 80's who deserves to be in the HOF.

 

I was 7 years old when Dawson joined the Cubs in '87, but having a father and grandfather who were lifelong Cubs fans, I watched a lot of games. This was back in the day when WGN broadcasted 140+ games a season so I could watch virtually every game even living in Oregon. What I remember more about Dawson than anything is:

 

1) Dawson throwing out runners going to third. I can't name any exact plays, but they always seemed to make the runner come up and do a double take, like, "where the hell did that come from?".

 

2) His intentional walk game. Now that may say more about the rest of the Cubbies' lineup than Dawson himself, but still, anyone who is given 5 IBB in a single game is someone to be feared/respected/whatever.

 

I never got to see him play in Montreal...a little before my time. Seriously though...if he had been a Yankee or Red Sox instead of an Expo, would we even be having this debate?