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

[imb]

Seriously though...if he had been a Yankee or Red Sox instead of an Expo, would we even be having this debate?

 

Yeah, because no one debates Jim Rice's HoF credentials.

[cfeedback]

Seriously though...if he had been a Yankee or Red Sox instead of an Expo, would we even be having this debate?

 

Yeah, because no one debates Jim Rice's HoF credentials.

 

Maybe that says more about Jim Rice... :D

[Abe Frohman]

Jim Rice had some real nice years, but he wasn't the defensive player or baserunner that Dawson was. 16 real good years for Rice, but I think it is a different arguement.

 

I think Rice was a better pure hitter, but Dawson was an overall better player.

[imb]

Seriously though...if he had been a Yankee or Red Sox instead of an Expo, would we even be having this debate?

 

Yeah, because no one debates Jim Rice's HoF credentials.

 

Maybe that says more about Jim Rice... :D

 

I think what I was going for here is that a lot of people debated Rice's hall candidacy and he played in Boston.

[cfeedback]

Seriously though...if he had been a Yankee or Red Sox instead of an Expo, would we even be having this debate?

 

Yeah, because no one debates Jim Rice's HoF credentials.

 

Maybe that says more about Jim Rice... :D

 

I think what I was going for here is that a lot of people debated Rice's hall candidacy and he played in Boston.

 

What I was going for is that his candidacy is given a huge boost by his having played for Boston. There are no legions of Expo fans supporting Dawson for the Hall. My point is that if Dawson had played for the Red Sox from '77 through '86, I believe he would already be in the HoF.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Jim Callis weighs in:

 

Greg (Charleston,SC): As a lifelong Cubs fan, I may be a little biased on this decision, but what are your thoughts of the prospect of Andre Dawson in the HOF?

 

SportsNation Jim Callis: (2:09 PM ET ) I'd put him in. The OBP doesn't light you up, but he was one of the game's best sluggers before power numbers went crazy, and he was a Gold Glove center fielder and a good basestealer as well. Playing in Montreal as long as he did hurt his cause, though.

[USSoccer]

FJM breaking apart a Dawson argument:

 

6. Andre Dawson.

 

Ugh.

 

A tremendous all-around talent who lasted 21 years on ravaged, wrecked knees, which was long enough to hit 438 home runs and steal 314 bases. While I don't believe he should have won the 1987 MVP as a member of the last-place Cubs, he'll always be a Hall of Famer to me. Unfortunately, not enough other voters agree.

 

I think you meant fortunately, not enough other voters agree.

 

I've been through this before on this site, but (a) who cares if he had wrecked knees? You don't get extra HOF points for that. And (b):

 

ANDRE DAWSON

 

.279/.323 (!!!!!!!!!)/.482

.285 EqA

1509 Ks and 589 BB in basically 10,000 at bats.

 

I think I could walk 589 times in 10,000 at bats.

 

Andre Dawson was below the league average in OBP 14 out of 21 years he played. That = not good. He did have a 109.5 career WARP3 in 2627 games. But that's still far less than Dwight Evans with the same career length. And no one ever talks about how Dewey should be in the HOF.

[wastra]

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.

 

 

I think the bottom line is that Dawson was the Cubs for many of us in our age range. Sandberg was great, but Dawson epitomized his team in ways comparable only to guys like Kirby Puckett.

 

I'd like to see him get in, but I understand the statistical deficiencies.

[apete6]

Unfortunately, even if the Hawk is elected this year, he will go in as an Expo. He will be remembered as a Cub because of 1987 and the playoff run in 89, as well as all of the media exposure, but most of his best seasons were as an Expo. All but 2 of his Gold Gloves were in Montreal and all of his highest SB totals were there as well. It is a very similar situation as Bruce Sutter last year. Either way, I think he belongs. And, no, number 8 should NOT be retired. 6 years on the North Side isn't enough.

[Abe Frohman]

Unfortunately, even if the Hawk is elected this year, he will go in as an Expo. He will be remembered as a Cub because of 1987 and the playoff run in 89, as well as all of the media exposure, but most of his best seasons were as an Expo. All but 2 of his Gold Gloves were in Montreal and all of his highest SB totals were there as well. It is a very similar situation as Bruce Sutter last year. Either way, I think he belongs. And, no, number 8 should NOT be retired. 6 years on the North Side isn't enough.

 

I have trouble with that. But I don't think it is fair of me to debate it - because I fell in love with baseball and the Cubs in the summer of 89. I did not witness Dawson's playing days in Montreal, but I definately recognized the name when I really got into baseball.

[DonnieD]

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 think this is a fair assessment of Dawson’s career. In my opinion you have to take the era he played in into consideration before you chastise him for a low OBP or other non-SABR friendly statistics. I completely buy in to the “new baseball knowledge” idea and respect the advancements in statistical analysis that have been made, but I am still vividly aware of the ideas of the “old guard”.

 

Who knows, if Dawson would have come up through a SABR friendly system today, he may be a perpetual .400 OBP guy. But the fact is he came up listening to scouts and coaches that belong to the “Ol’ Boys Club” and had people emphasizing AVG, HR, & RBI. You know he constantly heard that he was a slugger and his job was to drive in runs not to walk. And the fact is he did what people wanted him to do, and he was rewarded for it as his AS selections and MVP voting totals illustrate.

 

I guess I just don’t understand why some people indict Dawson for doing exactly what his coaches, owners, and even the fans wanted (and paid) him to do.

[Guest]

Because it wasn't what was best for his team?

[DonnieD]

I understand that now, as does any open minded person who has been exposed to new ideas. However, my point remains that he did not know that then nor did nearly anyone in the world much less anyone with any amount of influence inside the game of baseball. I liken this to thinking that Ty Cobb was a stupid player because he has 295 career sacrifices. What a terrible decision to give up that many outs voluntarily, especially when you have nearly a 50% chance of getting on base anyway. Except at the time, sacrifices were thought of as a good thing and the “right way to play the game” so I certainly wouldn’t condemn him because new analytical methods have helped determine that sacrifices are counterproductive.

 

I think that people of my generation and younger have made an incomprehensibly bad decision if they choose to smoke. I do not hold my grandparents to that same standard because they chose to smoke. When there is different information available with which to make decisions, then people who didn’t have that information should not be held to the same standard as the people that do.

 

Bill James and others have introduced a new way of thinking that is just now being grasped by the majority. I think it is unfair to denounce players from previous generations because they did not have that knowledge.

 

I’m curious Tim, how did you evaluate a player in the early to mid 80’s? Unless you were one of Bill James original followers I suspect it was with AVG, HR, & RBI like all of us who thought conventionally and OBP would have been somewhere way down the list.

[Guest]

I understand that now, as does any open minded person who has been exposed to new ideas. However, my point remains that he did not know that then nor did nearly anyone in the world much less anyone with any amount of influence inside the game of baseball. I liken this to thinking that Ty Cobb was a stupid player because he has 295 career sacrifices. What a terrible decision to give up that many outs voluntarily, especially when you have nearly a 50% chance of getting on base anyway. Except at the time, sacrifices were thought of as a good thing and the “right way to play the game” so I certainly wouldn’t condemn him because new analytical methods have helped determine that sacrifices are counterproductive.

 

I think that people of my generation and younger have made an incomprehensibly bad decision if they choose to smoke. I do not hold my grandparents to that same standard because they chose to smoke. When there is different information available with which to make decisions, then people who didn’t have that information should not be held to the same standard as the people that do.

 

Bill James and others have introduced a new way of thinking that is just now being grasped by the majority. I think it is unfair to denounce players from previous generations because they did not have that knowledge.

 

I’m curious Tim, how did you evaluate a player in the early to mid 80’s? Unless you were one of Bill James original followers I suspect it was with AVG, HR, & RBI like all of us who thought conventionally and OBP would have been somewhere way down the list.

Ignorance was bliss back in the day. :D

[Abe Frohman]

Hey Tim - you have the private message in your electronic box.

[fromthestretch]

I understand that now, as does any open minded person who has been exposed to new ideas. However, my point remains that he did not know that then nor did nearly anyone in the world much less anyone with any amount of influence inside the game of baseball. I liken this to thinking that Ty Cobb was a stupid player because he has 295 career sacrifices. What a terrible decision to give up that many outs voluntarily, especially when you have nearly a 50% chance of getting on base anyway. Except at the time, sacrifices were thought of as a good thing and the “right way to play the game” so I certainly wouldn’t condemn him because new analytical methods have helped determine that sacrifices are counterproductive.

 

I believe that back in the day, they were more liberal with scoring certain things as sacrifices, such as a grounder to the right side to move a runner from second to third. Also, I believe that sac flies and sac hits/bunts were totalled together, not separately as they are today.

[CubsLadyinSTL]

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

 

 

FOR FUTURE REFERENCE: Nor should center fielders who wear eyeliner.

 

 

 

**sorry couldnt resist

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

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

 

 

FOR FUTURE REFERENCE: Nor should center fielders who wear eyeliner.

 

 

 

**sorry couldnt resist

 

Andi's back!!!!!!

[CubsLadyinSTL]

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

 

 

FOR FUTURE REFERENCE: Nor should center fielders who wear eyeliner.

 

 

 

**sorry couldnt resist

 

Andi's back!!!!!!

 

 

Hell ya!!! Thats how I roll!

[Abe Frohman]

That was solid.

[VicCub]

Other than Willie Mays, I cannot think of one player who was better than Dawson at all five tools. Can anyone? (Maybe Joe D, but Hawk still stole more bags I believe.)

 

Hawk came very close to reaching offensive benchmarks that would enshrine any slow footed one trick pony. (3,000 hits, 500 hrs) I believe that Dawson either hit more HRs, or stole more bases than every member of the HOF not named Mays. Throw in his strong arm and outfield play (including many years in center) and he is a HOFer IMO.

 

I'd like to think that the fact that Hawk is my all-time fav athlete (ahead of Payton and Jordan) doesn't cloud my judgement, but it should be disclosed.