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

[CardsFanInChiTown]

I'm not going to hijack this thread with Ozzie Smith chat. Like I said, feel free to start a thread about it in Rivalries.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Dawson has a case, albeit a weak one.

 

If he were inducted, he'd be below average by HOF standards, but I don't think his case should be dismissed out right. He did play outstanding defense until his knees gave out and put up these numbers as a CF early in his career.

 

His list of comparables:

 

1. Billy Williams (892) *

2. Tony Perez (886) *

3. Dave Parker (865)

4. Al Kaline (859) *

5. Harold Baines (851)

6. Dwight Evans (834)

7. Ernie Banks (829) *

8. Dave Winfield (827) *

9. Vada Pinson (810)

10. Fred McGriff (797)

 

Of the ten, five are HOFers. He is most comparable to Billy Williams, who is another HOF corner OF.

 

Brock was mentioned earlier in this thread, so how about a comparison of Brock and Dawson.

 

Career OPS+

Dawson: 119

Brock: 109

 

Career HR

Dawson: 438

Brock: 149

 

Career BA

Dawson: 279

Brock: 293

 

Career Runs Scored

Dawson:1373

Brock: 1610

 

Career RBI

Dawson:1591

Brock: 900

 

The only reason Brock is in and Dawson is out is that Brock stole 938 bases to Dawson's 314.

 

Dawson was a better player than Brock.

[OleMissCub]

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.

 

A-freaking-MEN

 

Hell, look at Wade Boggs even. Dawson destroys him in every category except .BA and hits. But I guess since Boggs got to the "magical 3000" (3010 hits) and played for the Red Sox, he gets in. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Boggs wasn't an outstanding player. But anyway suggesting that Dawson wasn't a dominant player of his era is fooling themselves.

[rocket]

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.

 

A-freaking-MEN

 

Hell, look at Wade Boggs even. Dawson destroys him in every category except .BA and hits. But I guess since Boggs got to the "magical 3000" (3010 hits) and played for the Red Sox, he gets in. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Boggs wasn't an outstanding player. But anyway suggesting that Dawson wasn't a dominant player of his era is fooling themselves.

 

boggs destroys dawson in obp, walks, struck out way less than him, and has a higher career ops+. i'd personally prefer boggs on my team over dawson.

 

fun fact. you know who has a higher career ops+ than andre dawson? chili davis. would you vote for him in the hall of fame?

[YearofDaCubs]

Maybe you guys have a clip of it, it's been a while since I've seen it but do any of you have any clips of Dawson when he lost and started throwing things in the dugout? That was great.

[OleMissCub]

fun fact. you know who has a higher career ops+ than andre dawson? chili davis. would you vote for him in the hall of fame?

 

fun fact. you know who has more RBI than Wade Boggs? Eric Karros. would you vote him in the hall of fame?

 

If I had the option of having Boggs during his best season or Dawson, I'd take Dawson. But to each his own.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

fun fact. you know who has more RBI than Wade Boggs? Eric Karros. would you vote him in the hall of fame?.

 

 

 

13 RBI's, besides Boggs hit near the top of the lineup. Boggs had 716 more runs. That wasn't a really fair comparison.

[OleMissCub]

fun fact. you know who has more RBI than Wade Boggs? Eric Karros. would you vote him in the hall of fame?.

 

 

 

13 RBI's, besides Boggs hit near the top of the lineup. Boggs had 716 more runs. That wasn't a really fair comparison.

 

but, but...but Boggs had 3000 more AB's!

 

We can play this game all day long but it won't get us anywhere. Dawson is a HOF'er just as much as Boggs or Ozzie Smith.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

fun fact. you know who has more RBI than Wade Boggs? Eric Karros. would you vote him in the hall of fame?.

 

 

 

13 RBI's, besides Boggs hit near the top of the lineup. Boggs had 716 more runs. That wasn't a really fair comparison.

 

but, but...but Boggs had 3000 more AB's!

 

We can play this game all day long but it won't get us anywhere. Dawson is a HOF'er just as much as Boggs or Ozzie Smith.

 

Smith, yeah. But Boggs certainly belongs in the Hall and Dawson doesn't.

 

And Dawson was my favorite Cub growing up.

[Tracer Bullet]

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

 

When a guy plays 21 seasons, I'm not sure using career percentages is the best method of evaluation. He was productive for nearly all of those 21 seasons, but Dawson's best years were about 1980-1990 (ages 25-35). Even in that stretch, he had about 4 great years in Montreal, 2-3 average ones, and then about 4 more great ones in Chicago. If someone ran his averages from that stretch, I think it would be a better evaluation of how great a player he was. His other 10 or so seasons weren't "bad" but they were his very early and very late years.

 

Maybe his OBP/SLG/OPS isn't any better for those 10-11 prime years, but just looking at the numbers, it seems like the average of his prime is significantly better (though those 2-3 years where he missed 20 or some games each year in Montreal drag him down a bit). I think that's a better way to evaluate his Hall-worthiness.

[Tracer Bullet]

fun fact. you know who has more RBI than Wade Boggs? Eric Karros. would you vote him in the hall of fame?.

 

 

 

13 RBI's, besides Boggs hit near the top of the lineup. Boggs had 716 more runs. That wasn't a really fair comparison.

 

but, but...but Boggs had 3000 more AB's!

 

We can play this game all day long but it won't get us anywhere. Dawson is a HOF'er just as much as Boggs or Ozzie Smith.

 

Smith, yeah. But Boggs certainly belongs in the Hall and Dawson doesn't.

 

And Dawson was my favorite Cub growing up.

 

Please don't take this the wrong way, but you were, what, 4 when Dawson won the MVP. After seeing some of the posts, it looks like the people about 30 and older are on 1 side and the lower-20s group (except for the Cardinals fan, but their opinions don't really count :wink:) are on the other.

 

OBP was never Dawson's strength, but during his prime, his OBP was frequently in the .340-350 range. I don't think the "feared hitter" arguments carry much weight, but Dawson was a great player for a lot of years. One of the best OFs of his era.

 

I just have to think that he's going to be hurt b/c he played from the late-70s to early-90s for some really bad teams. So his numbers aren't as good when compared to the .900+ OPS's that so many players put in in the late-90s through now and he doesn't have a ring or a lot of playoff game performances.

 

Bottom line - I think he should be in, but won't be surprised if he never makes it. And that doesn't bother me as much anymore. The older I get, the more I realize how terrible people are at voting, especially in sport (whether it be awards, CFB polls, whatever). I'll always remember watching Dawson patrol RF, seeing him unleash the gun on runners trying to advance, watching him hit lasers all over the field. I don't need a plaque.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

My guess is Dawson will eventually make it as a veterans committee choice. He'd be a lock under the old system. What makes me wonder so far is the fact that the current set-up of the VC hasn't voted anyone in.

 

Dawson seems to have a lot of support among players who played with him and against him. He also has the demeanor that is respected by the old-timers. While he'll have to wait a long time, I have a feeling that since he was pre-steroid era, a model citizen and teammate, and regarded as a feared hitter of his day, that Dawson will be enshrined one day.

[RynoRules]

fun fact. you know who has a higher career ops+ than andre dawson? chili davis. would you vote for him in the hall of fame?

 

fun fact. you know who has more RBI than Wade Boggs? Eric Karros. would you vote him in the hall of fame?

 

If I had the option of having Boggs during his best season or Dawson, I'd take Dawson. But to each his own.

 

Fun questions: How many times was Chili Davis one of the thop three players in his league? How many ABs did Mr. Davis have as a DH?

[harrdb00]

Dawson is unlike the Dave Winfield and Eddie Murray types, his greatness is not just in his numbers (though his numbers are HOF worthy), but also in his ability to play an all-around game. He was one of the best defensive RFers, and a great base runner. His all around game is what made him a dominant force in the game during his prime as evidenced by winning an MVP award for a last place team, and coming close two other times. I have never understood the magic of 3,000 hits or 500 hrs. That does not mean you were a dominant player, but instead means you were a good hitter for a long time. I think the hall should be reserved for those who have solid career numbers and also dominated the game in all facets at some point during their career. Dawson meets this criteria.

 

As you may be able to tell, he and Sandberg were my heroes growing up. They did everything the right way and did it well.

[rocket]

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.

[harrdb00]

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.

 

Point taken, though how then do you explain the MVP award and two other times in the top 3? To me, that shows that the entire baseball world acknowledged his dominance.

[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.

 

Point taken, though how then do you explain the MVP award and two other times in the top 3? To me, that shows that the entire baseball world acknowledged his dominance.

 

 

Bill James called his 87 MVP selection possibly the worst in the history of MLB baseball. In terms of VORP he ranked 18th for NL players.

 

 

I'm a bit of a lightening rod so this is my last post in this thread.

 

viva Ozzie Smith! :wink:

Edited December 29, 2006 by CardsFanInChiTown

[rocket]

Point taken, though how then do you explain the MVP award and two other times in the top 3? To me, that shows that the entire baseball world acknowledged his dominance.

 

well, he won the MVP because of HR and RBI. i don't think he had the best season in the NL that year, but MVP voters love RBI. for instance, he was only 10th in the NL in OPS that year.

[fromthestretch]

If I had the option of having Boggs during his best season or Dawson, I'd take Dawson. But to each his own.

 

I'd take Boggs' 1987 season over Dawson's best year.

[harrdb00]

Point taken, though how then do you explain the MVP award and two other times in the top 3? To me, that shows that the entire baseball world acknowledged his dominance.

 

well, he won the MVP because of HR and RBI. i don't think he had the best season in the NL that year, but MVP voters love RBI. for instance, he was only 10th in the NL in OPS that year.

 

Oh okay, so you are discrediting that year's MVP award. Between your argument, VORP, and the irrelevant notion that Wade Boggs had a better year, there is a dearth of logic on these boards.

[rocket]

Point taken, though how then do you explain the MVP award and two other times in the top 3? To me, that shows that the entire baseball world acknowledged his dominance.

 

well, he won the MVP because of HR and RBI. i don't think he had the best season in the NL that year, but MVP voters love RBI. for instance, he was only 10th in the NL in OPS that year.

 

Oh okay, so you are discrediting that year's MVP award. Between your argument, VORP, and the irrelevant notion that Wade Boggs had a better year, there is a dearth of logic on these boards.

 

huh?

[USSoccer]

Point taken, though how then do you explain the MVP award and two other times in the top 3? To me, that shows that the entire baseball world acknowledged his dominance.

 

well, he won the MVP because of HR and RBI. i don't think he had the best season in the NL that year, but MVP voters love RBI. for instance, he was only 10th in the NL in OPS that year.

 

Oh okay, so you are discrediting that year's MVP award. Between your argument, VORP, and the irrelevant notion that Wade Boggs had a better year, there is a dearth of logic on these boards.

 

What does that even mean? He's saying that the MVP award is a subjective award given by writers with built in biases towards triple crown stats. How is that illogical?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Dawson has a case for election, but it isn't a strong case. He's not one of the guys that when looked at, immediately deserves enshrinement.

 

But, Dawson also would not lower the level of players in the Hall if he were admitted.

 

Dawson was an eight time all-star. Not only did Dawson win an MVP, but he finished second twice, and in the top ten in voting one other time.

 

He was in the top ten in SLG% eight times. He was among the top ten in total bases ten times. He ranks 24th on the career list of total bases. His 438 HR ranks him 35th on the all-time list and his 1591 RBI ranks him 29th on the all-time list. He's 22nd all-time on extra-base hits.

 

I'll admit he's not an easy candidate to admit into the Hall. There are others like Albert Belle that may be better that will never get a sniff.

 

Dawson doesn't rank as well when measured with the saber stats, and that I'll easily confess.

 

Were Kirby Puckett and Dave Winfield really that much better players than Dawson?

 

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

[fromthestretch]

Point taken, though how then do you explain the MVP award and two other times in the top 3? To me, that shows that the entire baseball world acknowledged his dominance.

 

well, he won the MVP because of HR and RBI. i don't think he had the best season in the NL that year, but MVP voters love RBI. for instance, he was only 10th in the NL in OPS that year.

 

Oh okay, so you are discrediting that year's MVP award. Between your argument, VORP, and the irrelevant notion that Wade Boggs had a better year, there is a dearth of logic on these boards.

 

How is it irrelevant when it's in response to a previous post where someone claimed they would take Dawson's best year over Boggs' best year? No one used that statement as reason for Dawson not to be in the HoF.

 

"Dearth of logic" indeed.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

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.