Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What about Dawson?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    although he had 300+ steals, he never was a true 30-30 man .
    his counting stats are nice, not overwhelmingly high but still nice.
    I'm counting only 2, maybe 2.5, "HOF type years" offensively.
    Good OFer

    I am pursuaded to vote for him at this point. A few years ago I wouldn't have been.

    Comment


    • #17
      It's mind-boggling to me why Dawson isn't in. Yeah, he didn't walk enough. Jeez, get over it.

      Despite his low OBP, he was plainly one of the top 10 players in the game for about a 15 year stretch. His career numbers are staggering for a non-inductee, middle of the road for a inductee. Great fielder who spent about half his career in CF, half in RF (he ended up playing about two more seasons in RF so he tends to be considered strictly a corner OF, which is amnesiac).

      That is patently a HOF career.

      Comment


      • #18
        Andre Dawson -

        Andre Dawson is a Hall of Fame player. Statistics in his Favor,(Rank in all time categories)The second number in parentheses is the ranking of the eligible players that can be voted into the Hall of fame with/against him, and the player(s) that are better than him in that category. Also does not calculate players that were taken off the ballot
        Because they did not get listed on 5% of the ballot and were dropped or active players.


        438 Homeruns (30) (1)
        1591 rbi’s, (28) (1)
        4737 Total bases (24) (1)
        503 doubles (41) (2) Boggs
        300 stolen bases, (1)
        111 HBP (39) (1)
        1039 Ex Base hits (21) (2) Boggs
        2774 Hits (43) 2 (Boggs)
        118 – Sacrifice Flies (7) (1)
        8 times in the top 10 in slugging %
        8 times an all star
        8 gold gloves,
        ROY in 1977
        MVP in 1987

        And what are the Statistics against him?

        217 GIDP (52) – did you ever see how hard he hit balls? If we wasn’t
        such a hustle player, he might have hit into 50 more. How about lets
        eliminate all the players that have at least 100 more GIDP’s than Dawson. Stating with
        Ripken, Aaron, Yastremski, Winfield, Murray, Rice(Who should be in as well)
        Brooks Robinson, Clemente, Al Kaline and Frank Robinson.

        A ,279, lifetime average?, Certainly better than the .262 for Ozzie smith
        And .267 for Brooks Robinson. Two players that are almost solely in the Hall of Fame for their glove work 13 and 16 gg’s respectively. And there are 3x as many outfielders Competing for the same position as there are SS or 3B,
        Should I mention Phil Rizutto and Pee Wee Reese?

        His OPS Wasn’t great? He was in the top 10 in the league 6 times in his career.His slugging % was fine, Who was the genius who decided to combine On base Percentage and slugging percentage. Hey I want to make a statistic, lets combine Strikeouts and amount of time that the player was on-deck when the last out was Made in the inning, well call it the PPWODAS. I don’t have a calculator but Dave Kingman should win this hands down right? Didn’t Ed Kranepool bat in front of him?

        His OBP wasn’t good and that is his only knock.

        If there is ever a year to vote in "Hawk" it would be nice for him to go in with
        Wade and the other deserving players like Jim Rice, Dale Murphy, Al Oliver and Ryne Sandberg.
        Last edited by scottdpops; 11-20-2004, 04:15 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Dawson is part of a big group of '70s and '80s outfileders who are borderline HOF candidates. Reggie Smith, Bobby Bonds, George Foster, Dave Parker, Fred Lynn, Jim Rice, Dwight Evans, Dale Murphy, Jack Clark... Dawson fits somewhere in there. His counting stats are the best of that group, but his rate stats are the poorest, especially OBP. Dawson's gold glove total is impressive, but the fielding stats don't really back that up, so you have to wonder if he was a bit overrated defensively.
          "The numbers are what brought me here; as it appears they brought you."
          - Danielle Rousseau

          Comment


          • #20
            I'm all for The Hawk...however, let me qualify this statement by saying that I also believe that Larry Walker is HOF material, so, y'know...
            What can I say? I'm a fan of five-tool players.
            you don't like me?
            but...i like you!

            Comment


            • #21
              Veterans will remeber him

              Originally posted by Eddie Collins
              Yes, of course they are. He isn't one of the top 10 left out or anything, and Santo, Minoso, and a plenty others have a better case, but he was one of my favorites growing up, and I always thought he was a great player when he was playing. I guess this once again goes back to that issue on the perception of greatness.
              Couldn't have said it better, EC. Even if the stat crazed BBWAA knuckleheads snub him, the VC probably won't. Dawson was truly a remarkable five tool player, and possessed that intangible sixth (his desire to compete and win) that many writers overlook because they can't see past their keyboards and reference books. The guys that played with and against him will recall he was also a victim of collusion by the owners when they tried collective subterfuge in denying free agents a decent shake. I too, held him in high regard as an Expo, but when he became a free agent and played for the Cubs, essentially without a contract, I was amazed at his work ethic. He basically told the Wrigley gang to just pay him whatever they thought was fair, and he won the MVP on the woeful last place club. Not only was that feat unique, it made me a fan of his for life.
              Baseball is a ballet without music. Drama without words ~Ernie Harwell

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by csh19792001
                Dawson struck out 3 times for every walk, which is AWFUL. How many positon players in the HOF did that?
                Reggie Jackson?

                I don't have his stats in front of me, but I'm willing to bet that Jackson's K/BB ratio isn't great, either.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by pesky6
                  Reggie Jackson?

                  I don't have his stats in front of me, but I'm willing to bet that Jackson's K/BB ratio isn't great, either.
                  Jackson would take a walk. His K/W ratio is 1.89. I find six HOF position players worse than that.

                  2.27 Brock
                  2.14 Puckett
                  2.07 Stargell
                  2.02 Perez
                  1.99 Cepeda
                  1.98 Clemente

                  Among HOFers retired before 1970, George Kelly at 1.80 is the only one worse than 1.40.
                  Si quaeris peninsulam amoenam, circumspice.

                  Comprehensive Reform for the Veterans Committee -- Fixing the Hall continued.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    --Strike out rates have gone up consistenty over time. It is a mistake to give too much credit to pre-war (or even pre-60s) players for not striking out much or criticize more recent players for stirking out alot.
                    --When the strike zone was made smaller in 1963 the trend toward more strike outs exploded and the stigma to it was almost completed erased. Not only were lots of guys now getting 100+ K's a year, many of them were the best players in the game. Baseball men started to realize that the strike out wasn't such a huge negative and that the trade off in bigger power numbers was a net plus for most hitters.
                    --That said, a player who strikes out alot and doesn't walk really needs to try a new approach. Dawson's hack away approach was a huge flaw in his game (the only one really). His low OBP is the only thing keeping him out of the Hall. Eventually I think his other multiple skills and big counting numbers will over come that and he will get in.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      King of Swinganamiss

                      Originally posted by pesky6
                      Reggie Jackson?

                      I don't have his stats in front of me, but I'm willing to bet that Jackson's K/BB ratio isn't great, either.
                      Now you have me wondering how Reggie's HR/K ratio stacks up among the HOF guys, and Andre Dawson's, since this thread is about him.

                      Jackson 563HR/2597K* =0.217
                      Dawson 438HR/1509K =0.290

                      *Denotes all-time record
                      Baseball is a ballet without music. Drama without words ~Ernie Harwell

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        If Andre had stayed a centerfielder I think his chances at the hall would have been greater. Dawson gets support I think because of his reputation more so then his actual playing stats.

                        He did not hit for average, he did not get on base, and for a slugger his slugging is mediocre. Andre played in a day when a .500+ slugging made you a "slugger" . Andre finished with a .482 SLG despite the fact that he got to play in Wrigley and Fenway for 8 seasons. Out of 18 full seasons he only crosses the .500 plateau 5 times. The only time he hits more then 32 home runs is in the flukish home run year of 1987 when he hit 49 homers. That year for whatever the reason everybody was hitting home runs.

                        This is something I wrote awhile back on the Cubs section:
                        Personally I don't think he should go to the hall of fame but I don't have a vote. So my opinion really doesn't matter.

                        Since this is a Cubs section and most of us are Cub fans and a little bias to our Cubbies. I believe though that when you talk about national awards such as MVP, Cy Young, or HOF you should put your local favoritism aside and look at it with open eyes. Having said this and knowing what I am going to say next. Let me state that I loved watching Dawson play and was glad he was on our team.

                        Dawson was a good player not a great player. In fact I believe his best seasons were with the expos not with the Cubs. If you look at his 1987 MVP seasons it isn't all that great. In fact he had better season with the expos then that year. The reason he won the award is because he led the league in HR and RBI's two stats that voters love. Even though those two stats might not be the best indicators of importance. That year he crushed 49 HR's (which is a mind-boggling number back then in the 80's) but only slugged .568 and had a on-base percentage of .329. He couldn't even get on-base a third of the time (also his career OBP is .327). In fact he isn't even in the top five in slugging that year.

                        Lets look at the traditional stats that most people look at when evaluating players. He only top 100 RBI's 4 times in his 21 seasons. He only tops 100 runs twice. He only hits 30 or more HR's three times. In fact he only avg 21 hrs a season. He only hits over .300 4 times. True he did bat .299 one year, but to credit that then you have to discount the years he batted .301 and .302. He never topped 200 hits, he topped 180 twice. Andre did have a stretch of seven seasons where he did top 20 SB's. Everybody likes to look at his low home run total and say "well he played in a different era. Players didn't hit as many HR's. You have to factor that in." And they are right in saying that. Unfortunatly they don't factor his era in when looking at his SB's. Andre played in an era where it was common for the SB leaders to have 60, 70, 80, 90, or even over 100 SB's in a season. In fact Andre was never in the top 5 in SB's any of those 7 years. In fact we was only slighly above average in SB's those years. To me just looking at the traditional stats reveals nothing truly great about Dawson.

                        Looking at the non-traditional stats like OBP, Slugging, and BB/K ration reveals even further that Dawson doesn't deserve to go into the hall. From what I understand .500 Slugging is the benchmark for above average hitter. Dawsons career avg is .482, he only tops .500 4 times. His career OBP is .327 he only has 2 seasons above .350. His career BB/K is close to 1/3. Which means for every walk he strikes out three times. Which any stat head will tell you is unacceptable.


                        To me Dawsons numbers look good or I should say better than they really are because he played long after he should of retired. I personally think he should of retired after the 1990 season. Yeah the next season he hit 31 homers but that was basically all he did. He hung around for six more seasons basically as a spare part or being a name. You take away those six years of padding and he would lose 93 homers and something like 370 RBI's. Granted if you like we can subtract his 91 from that list and say he should of retire after 91 not 90 but still he would padding. Dawson in my view was an all or nothing guy. He would either hit one over the wall, off the wall, into a mitt, or strike out. He was not a complete hitter and it shows in his stats much more than in the retelling of his legend.


                        Basically this is what I believe to be true. Andre Dawson was a great Cub Player because of his leadership and his persona. He was not however a great Major League Ballplayer worthy of the HOF. A good ballplayer yes, great one no.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I agree with Cubbie in exile. The Hall of Fame is(or should be) about greatness, not counting numbers. And it should not become the Hall of Skill, although it tends that way. Adding people like Dawson and Rizzuto don't do the Hall or baseball any good because they cheapen the hall.

                          If we ever get a tiered hall I would consider Dawson for a lower tier, but right now I don't want to see a continual dilution of the inductee level, which is too low as it is.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            sure

                            I read you message but I'm convince that he should go the hall. If Tony Perez can go, the hawk should be there too.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Jeff, are you saying the Hall should compound mistakes and keep the bar low?
                              I don't think Perez belongs either, but I can't see saying since player A is in and player B is just as good he should be in also, that just continues the trend of reducing the honor of making the Hall.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by four tool
                                Jeff, are you saying the Hall should compound mistakes and keep the bar low?
                                I don't think Perez belongs either, but I can't see saying since player A is in and player B is just as good he should be in also, that just continues the trend of reducing the honor of making the Hall.
                                But is that fair to the individual player? If Players A and B make the hall (and arguably should not have), and Player C had a very similar, if not slightly more spectacular career, how are they supposed to feel about the snub? By having Players A and B in, the standard for Player C to make the Hall has been set, so it would seem an unfair disrespect to keep him out when others have been rewarded for similar accomplishments.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X