Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What about Dawson?

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

  • #31
    Does it matter how they feel? Hall of Fame isn't a right it is a privilege.

    If I was a voter I wouldn't have voted for Perez but just because my fellow writers made that mistake I wouldn't compound the mistake by letting in another player who didn't deserve the hall in my eyes just because they made the first mistake.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by cubbieinexile
      Does it matter how they feel? Hall of Fame isn't a right it is a privilege.

      If I was a voter I wouldn't have voted for Perez but just because my fellow writers made that mistake I wouldn't compound the mistake by letting in another player who didn't deserve the hall in my eyes just because they made the first mistake.
      That sounds kind of self-righteous though. Who is to say that your standards for the Hall are better and more appropriate than the next guys? Obviously, if a player is elected that you don't feel isn't deserving, your opinion on what constitutes a Hall of Fame career is in the minority. You see it as everyone else making the mistake; perhaps in turn, everyone else sees your standards as the mistake.

      I deal with what is. If I feel a player isn't deserving of the Hall, then I will not vote for them. However, if that player meets the Hall standards of 75% of the writers, I'm not going to say that his election was a mistake; if anything I'm going to rethink my position and wonder why I'm in the minority. And in the future, I'll use the new standard in evaluating other players. If Player A's career met the standards of at least 75% of the writers and was thus deemed Hall worthy, I'll take that into account when assessing similar players. I'm not going to be selfish and self-righteous and pretend that I know the absolute standard for the Hall. This doesn't mean that I won't disagree with some choices due to personal prerogative, but it means that I'll use Tony Perez' selection as a means to evaluate Andre Dawson's candidacy. If Perez' career was good enough to meet the approval of 75% of the voters, then I'm going to think why Dawson shouldn't meet that standard. But I, in no way will be judgemental and have the audacity to call the opinion of the majority of my peers a mistake, because there must be reason they all feel that way.

      And as for feelings...how would you feel if you worked just as effectively and efficiently as a co-worker, but at the end of the year they were rewarded with a bonus, while you were inexplicably not, despite being similarly productive? Didn't you earn that same respect and acknowledgement as the co-worker? Don't you feel slighted that for some reason he's rewarded while you aren't for doing similar work?
      Last edited by DoubleX; 12-23-2004, 11:08 AM.

      Comment


      • #33
        I am viewing the hall as if I am a lone voter with a single ballot. I would on vote on players who I believe should be in the hall not those that should be in the hall because others are there. Every year to me would be as if the hall was empty and the list of eligibles in front of me was the first potential nominees going into a empty hall. Just because a bunch of people think that Tony Perez is hall worthy doesn't mean I have to, and it doesn't mean I am selfish or self-righteous. The majority of people thought the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe. Doesn't make those who disagreed with the majority wrong.

        As for the employement issue that is comparing apples to oranges. The Hall of Fame is not the employer and in fact are a seperate entity founded by a rather rich family to boost tourism in their area. Basically the hall of Fame is an opinion poll. Being passed over for a bonus at work is a whole different ballgame.

        Comment


        • #34
          If I was a voter and I had never voted for Tony Perez, not even once, then why should I suddenly use him as a measuring stick when looking at new candidates? Now then if I had voted for Tony Perez then of course I should use Tony Perez as a benchmark since I believe he is a hall of famer. The same should apply to players you voted but have not or never have made the hall. For instance if you are the guy who gave Juan Samuel a hall of Fame vote then this year Concepcion should be on your ballot as well as Ryne Sandberg, as well as Trammell.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by cubbieinexile
            I am viewing the hall as if I am a lone voter with a single ballot. I would on vote on players who I believe should be in the hall not those that should be in the hall because others are there. Every year to me would be as if the hall was empty and the list of eligibles in front of me was the first potential nominees going into a empty hall. Just because a bunch of people think that Tony Perez is hall worthy doesn't mean I have to, and it doesn't mean I am selfish or self-righteous. The majority of people thought the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe. Doesn't make those who disagreed with the majority wrong.

            As for the employement issue that is comparing apples to oranges. The Hall of Fame is not the employer and in fact are a seperate entity founded by a rather rich family to boost tourism in their area. Basically the hall of Fame is an opinion poll. Being passed over for a bonus at work is a whole different ballgame.
            I think you missed the point with my analogy. It's about respect, it's about recognition. As a person, shouldn't one receive the same recognition and accolades as another for similar achievements? It seems unfair to reward someone but not another for doing similar things, irrespective if it's a mistake to give the reward in the first place. I couldn't imagine that you or most anyone else wouldn't feel slighted by being passed over for something you deserved based on the standards of others who have been rewarded.

            And even though it wasn't your intent, when you say, "Does it matter how they feel? Hall of Fame isn't a right it is a privilege," that does sound self-righteous. It sounds like you are saying that you hold the absolute definition for Hall of Fame standards and view the opinions of everyone who disagrees to be a mistake. You're entitled to your opinions and assesments, just realize that your prerogatives aren't more right or wrong than any of the other voters (which I think you've addressed in your subsequent posts).
            Last edited by DoubleX; 12-23-2004, 12:07 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              If we're going to use the work issue, and I agree that's apples and oranges, we could use a school issue. If teacher A says this paper is a B, but every other teacher says it's an A, should teacher A change his/her grade?
              (Think Professor Kingsfield of Paper Chase, for instance).

              We should be working to fix the Hall, not just open the floodgates.

              Comment


              • #37
                What does fixing it mean? Does it mean taking out Tony Perez, thereby overuling the opinions of 75% of the actual voters? The fact is that Perez was deemed Hall of Fame worthy and that's not going to change, and thus we need to deal with what is. Tony Perez is forever part of the definition of what it means to be a Hall of Famer, and as such, his part of the definition should at least be considered whenever appropriate (such as Andre Dawson and Jim Rice).

                Comment


                • #38
                  Going down that road means that eventually Neifi Perez will get in. I choose not to go down that slippery slope. To me the bottom rung shouldn't be the measuring stick of whether or not one goes into the hall. It lowers the standard. How is that good for any organization or business?
                  "Well Bob you are as good as our worst employee so you've got the job."

                  Then from there where do you go? Do you also consider what the Vet Com. decided was hall of famer as well?

                  To me a player should be at least better then the average hall of famer. Actually for me a player has to be within the top 5 of his position all time when he retires for me to be for his election.

                  I

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by cubbieinexile
                    Going down that road means that eventually Neifi Perez will get in. I choose not to go down that slippery slope. To me the bottom rung shouldn't be the measuring stick of whether or not one goes into the hall. It lowers the standard. How is that good for any organization or business?
                    "Well Bob you are as good as our worst employee so you've got the job."

                    Then from there where do you go? Do you also consider what the Vet Com. decided was hall of famer as well?

                    To me a player should be at least better then the average hall of famer. Actually for me a player has to be within the top 5 of his position all time when he retires for me to be for his election.

                    I
                    Under your scenario, the opposite effect would happen as the average would keep getting higher until the standard is ridiculously high.

                    The standards of what constitutes a Hall of Famer are not precisely defined. All sorts of players with varying accomplishments have been deemed Hall of Fame worthy, and it's obvious that a player doesn't have to be Willie Mays or Babe Ruth to make the Hall of Fame. I'm just saying that if a player comes around whose career is comparable to someone in the Hall (in this case, Dawson to Tony Perez), there is obviously a precedent for that type of career being Hall of Fame worthy. I'm not opening the floodgates for the likes of Neifi Perez at all, I'm just considering how players stack up to others in the Hall. Obviously, Neifi Perez isn't going to compare favorably to anyone in the Hall, but Dawson might to Tony Perez and others. So the question I ask myself is if Tony Perez has been deemed Hall of Fame worthy, does Andre Dawson meet that standard as well?

                    Now would I have put Tony Perez in the Hall in the first place? Probably not. But he's in and will thus be forever part of the definition of what constitutes a Hall of Fame career. And as such, I feel it should be applied when assessing future candidacies. Is Andre Dawson a Babe Ruth or Willie Mays? Certainly not, but the Hall of Fame is much larger than just those types of players. Is Andre Dawson a Tony Perez? Now that's something I have to think about. If after thinking it over, I've decided that Dawson was at least as good, if not better than Perez, than I feel if Perez is in then it's only fair that Dawson is in. We can't ignore what is, and what is and what forever shall be is that Perez is part of the Hall of Fame vernacular.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Warren G. Harding was the President of the United States, Aaron Burr was the Vice President. Do they set the standard for all future presidents and vice presidents? Should we base our vote for President based on the worst President? In the end you get what you vote for. If you vote based on the minimum then what you get is the minimum. And I have no problem with a ridiculously high standard. I perfer that to a low standard.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by cubbieinexile
                        Warren G. Harding was the President of the United States, Aaron Burr was the Vice President. Do they set the standard for all future presidents and vice presidents? Should we base our vote for President based on the worst President? In the end you get what you vote for. If you vote based on the minimum then what you get is the minimum. And I have no problem with a ridiculously high standard. I perfer that to a low standard.
                        Now that is certainly comparing apples and oranges since we assess their presidencies (and vice presidencies) in retrospect. The average voter couldn't anticipate that Harding's presidency would be rife with corruption and that Burr's as sitting Vice President would kill one of the most influential people in the nation's history and then plot to form a new nation in the southwest and Mexico. Players are voted into the Hall of Fame based on what they've already done, people are voted into office to empower them to do something (In Burr's defense, he was extremely influential in terms of how political campaigns are run and establishing politicking as we know it, and that's coming from an ardent Hamilton admirer).

                        Anyway, I think it's clear where we both stand in this discussion, so it's probably not worth debating anymore. Thanks for the good discussion though.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          I always thought of Dawson as a future hall of famer while he was playing. Ryne Sandberg said he should be elected earlier this year.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Andre Dawson

                            This man put up great career numbers, all the while being a professional and a great human being. Anyone remember when he got irate and threw bats on the field?....lol. To me, he was Sammy Sosa before there was Sammy Sosa.




                            21 Seasons: G2627 AB9927 R1373 H2774 2B503 3B98 HR438 RBI1591 BB589 SO1509 SB314 CS109 AVG.279




                            Awards:
                            • 1977: National League Rookie of the Year
                            • 1980: National League Gold Glove at OF
                            • 1981: National League Gold Glove at OF
                            • 1982: National League Gold Glove at OF
                            • 1983: National League Gold Glove at OF
                            • 1984: National League Gold Glove at OF
                            • 1985: National League Gold Glove at OF
                            • 1987: National League Gold Glove at OF
                            • 1987: National League Most Valuable Player
                            • 1988: National League Gold Glove at OF




                            Notes:
                            - All statistics through the 2004 season.
                            Last edited by Lipsander; 01-13-2006, 02:04 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              So do you believe that he should be in the Hall of Fame by now?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                1. Dawson is Hall-worthy.
                                2. Dawson has been one of the 10 most worthy players on the BBWAA ballot every year he's been eligible.

                                Hence...Dawson should already have been elected by now.

                                I'm curious how 2007 and 2008 will affect his chances. In 2007 he'll be up against new outfield candidates Gwynn, Canseco and Davis. In 2008, Raines will be added to the ballot. Might be nice to see Dawson and Raines go in together.
                                "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith
                                "I am led to suspect that some of the electorate is very dumb." -- Henry P. Edwards
                                "You have a Hall of Fame to put people in, not keep people out." -- Brian Kenny
                                "There's no such thing as a perfect ballot." -- Jay Jaffe

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X