Hall of Fame 2010: Andre Dawson elected

[GAME05]

"Jack Morris was on 4 winning teams and won a WS MVP"

i have a feeling he makes it in on the basis of having the 2nd or 3rd best performance by a pitcher in a World Series, in a Game 7 nonetheless.

 

 

Roberto Alomar would get my vote on the basis of his 10 gold gloves.

 

I'd probably also be one of those people who'd vote for McGwire, asterisk-free. though maybe odd I wouldn't have voted for Jim Rice, because while Rice was the best for about seven years, McGwire was so far ahead of everyone else in his time and made such a tremendous impact. he should get some credit for the "memorable" factor.

[reillymcshane]

Injuries forced Mattingly out of the game as well but that doesn't seem to work for him, IMO he was better then Puckett.

 

I'd probably only vote for Alomar

Mattingly played 6 full seasons where he was pretty average (at least as a hitter). Before that, he had two very good (but not great) years, and before that 4 great seasons (all +.900 OPS). Sadly, Mattingly was done being a great player at 26. I think people let those first few magnificent years color the fact that Mattingly wasn't that good for 1/2 of his career.

 

Puckett didn't have a good year until he was 26 years old. In his second to last year, he had a .902 OPS (at age 34). He was, consistently, a better player. He didn't have the high notes like Mattingly, but he was better for a longer time. Both guys won a ton of gold gloves, but CF is probably a more important to have a great fielder than 1B.

 

Personally, I don't think either should be in. Neither quite had the staying power I like to see. But if I had to pick one, I'd say Puckett, for 10 good to great years as a CF.

[GAME05]

it seems to me that Mattingly gets some votes just for being the best player on the Yankees team for most of his years, in by far the biggest media market in the country. that certainly adds some shine to his name and in the memory of the numerous New England media voters. i think it's the same thing as presuming Yount would have done a lot better than 77% if he'd have played almost anywhere other than Milwaukee.

[1992casey]

I think that a large part of the reason that Yount's percentage was low was the fact that three players were elected on the same ballot for the first time in eons. There were writers who wouldn't put Ryan, Yount, and Brett on the same ballot simply because they didn't want to see more than two players inducted.

[DuWayne Steurer]

A career .830 OPS first baseman who didn't compile GREAT counting stats isn't going to make it in. Less than 250 homers, less than 1,100 RBI, less than 2,300 hits. Just doesn't make the grade. Not even really close, at least in my opinion.

 

For point of reference, his 'most similar' on baseball reference is Cecil Cooper, and I don't see anyone clamoring for him to get in.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Injuries forced Mattingly out of the game as well but that doesn't seem to work for him, IMO he was better then Puckett.

 

I'd probably only vote for Alomar

Puckett had a higher OPS for his career (.837 to .830), a higher batting average, and more hits. While playing good defense at a premium position, while Mattingly's numbers for most of his career were more or less league average for a 1st baseman.

[Principessa21]

Edgar Martinez should be in Cooperstown, but I wonder if a full-time DH will ever get voted in.

To me, this should be the focal point of this year's discussion. With other players, you can compare OPS+ against others who played the same position, then try to factor in for defense. That's not the case at all for Edgar.

 

I've never used Yuku's kudos feature before, but (if I did things right), Principessa21 got one from me. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif To me, Martinez is a definite for the Hall. But looking at this thread, of the 15 or so who voted, only 5 mentioned him. Why? Is it because he wasn't a regular until his late twenties? Unfortunately I just think it's because some hold DHs to a different standard. Either you're a great baseball player or you're not, and Martinez deserves to be honored. BTW, I vote no on Mattingly and I'm a Yankees fan.

[joepepsi]

Alomar, Larkin, Blyleven, Trammell, Raines. In the future maybe McGriff and Edgar. I know lots of people think Dawson deserves it. I'm willing to be persuaded, but for now, I don't think so. Same with Jack Morris. Mattingly doesn't deserve it.

 

Two players in my lifetime who deserve it but will probably never make it are Lou Whitaker and Ted Simmons.

[apirk]

I didn't mean that I thought Mattingly should be elected because I don't think he should be but I don't think Puckett should have been either.

[igor67]

I'm pro-Raines, Blyleven, Trammel, Larkin, and Martinez. One valuable way to look at Larkin in my mind is to think back to the twilight of his career when he was still often the 4th best SS in the game behind the trinity. There was all kind of talk about how he could easily miss out when he'd be a shoo-in compared to the Yount- Ripken era. Well what happened to that lofty reign of SS? One's career tapered way off due to injury. Another saw his start dim a bit based on a realization that he is the anti-Ozzie SS. And the third moved to third. And the other SS that were supposed to keep stepping forward in this era of the offensive SS have not really panned out in the superstar level.

My argument for Martinez is that 30+ years into the DH era it is a position that can be defined. Despite all the noise about finding a guy to play that position who can just mash, I ask where are these players? I certainly am not seeing this trend towards the long career of the clod of a player having a HOF run as a DH. The data actually suggests that it is harder to be a career DH and hit enough to make the HOF, than as a first basemen. Almost like there is something to notion of pinch hitting, and not being in the rhythm of the game. Molitor's career arc was pretty different, but he's really the only other guy I'm aware of who really put together a streak of dominance as a DH, (Frank Thomas continued to play a lot of 1st base throughout his career). All of this suggests that DH should have maybe a lower offensive standard than 1st base.

[Tbadder]

I'd go Alomar and Blyleven. I'd hold up Dawson as the line in the sand. Nobody gets in unless they surpass him. Same thing for Morris. I'd might go Smith as well, although in general I'd actively work against closers or Dhs from making the Hall

[GAME05]

the DH is only contributing half as much. it's a position players are relegated to once they wash up defensively, so i personally have a lower regard for it. I'm not averse in any way to a DH in the HOF because it's part of the game like it or not. but because of the half-play, i think a HOF DH should have truly dominant offensive statistics to make it, and I don't think Martinez' are enough.

 

maybe the analogy doesn't work, but obviously a DH would make the HOF on offensive stats alone. wouldn't it then be justification for someone like Omar Vizquel to make the HOF because of his truly dominant defensive skills despite his Uecker-esque bat?

[topper09er]

Even though I hate the DH I think Edgar is very close to HOF standards and probably deserves to be in. Im not sure I like that arguement that Ozzie and Bill Maz are in only because of defense, which is true, but that that is because they are regarded as the best defensively at their position EVER. So if you say you can ignore Edgar's defense and only vote offense he should be one of the best hitters EVER, which is is not. However, I think if he played in the NL he would have been a below average defensive 1B, he played 500+ games at 3B with a barely below average FD% and RF. Would we ever penalize a 1B with great offensive because of bad defense? Would anyone not vote for Mark McGwire (based on stats only) because they thought he wasnt good enough at defense? If you compare Edgar to other 1Bs he is short on counting stats but his rate stats are amazing and he sustained very high rate stats for a long period. 8 seasons with a 150 or better OPS+ and 12 seasons with a 130 or better OPS+. a 147 career OPS+, while playing in the AL in the 1990s! A 7 year stretch from '95-'01 he averaged .329/.446/.574 (163 OPS+) 32 HRs, 123 RBI and 330 TB per full season. That is not counting 1992 when he won the batting title with a 164 OPS+. Another player who had amazing rate stats but less counting stats is Hank Greenberg (who missed years due to war service not because he were held back in the minors). Greenbergs 7 best full seasons are .321/.417/.631 (OPS+ 165) 42 HR 158 RBI 387 TB per full season.

 

Edgar finished with 309 HR/1261 RBI/2247 H/1219 R

Greenberg finished with 331 HR/1267 RBI/1628 H/1051 R

 

I dont think Edgar is first ballot material (in my opinion only guys with great rate and counting stats are first ballot material) but I would vote for him in his second year. Same with Larkin.

 

This year I would vote for Alomar, Blyleven, McGwire and Raines.

[kramnoj]

wouldn't it then be justification for someone like Omar Vizquel to make the HOF because of his truly dominant defensive skills despite his Uecker-esque bat?

 

It wouldn't be shocking to see Vizquel get HoF support. I don't think he'll get in easily, but some writers will like that he doesn't have the gaudy numbers from the steroid era.

 

When Vizquel retires, he could have as many hits as Alomar does, and Alomar will presumably be in the HoF in the next few years.

 

Note, that's not a reason that I would use, but it's not hard to imagine that some writers will see it that way.

[Bikeage77]

Dawson squeaked by, and Blyleven just missed (74.2%)

 

Surprised Alomar didn't get in. I'm surprised Dawson was the only one.

[DuWayne Steurer]

What a joke. It's fast becoming the Hall of Very Good players.

[TheYoShow]

What a joke. It's fast becoming the Hall of Very Good players.

Because they let in one guy? I don't get your gripe. It seems pretty hard to get in to me.

[RockCoCougars]

Dawson is a solid and deserving selection. He was certainly a better player than recent inductees such as Jim Rice, Tony Perez, Bruce Sutter, etc. My guess is that many of the people who feel that Dawson is not deserving (and perhaps Tim Raines is) were too young to watch him during his prime.

[topper09er]

No Alomar is shocking, best 2nd baseman in the league in th 90s, better than Biggio and Kent plus Sandberg and most 2B in the HOF except for Hornsby, Morgan and maybe Carew, Collins, Lajoie Gehringer and Robinson

[Invader3K]

I feel bad for Blyleven missing by so little. Kind of a travesty if you ask me. I'm not that bothered by Dawson. I don't think he should have gotten in, but I think he was pretty borderline.

[Bikeage77]

Blyleven was in pretty good spirits after being interviewed by MLB.Com, he's pretty confident that next year he'll get in.

[kramnoj]

Anyone who thinks Dawson is HOVG should take a look at all the players that are in the HoF. Dawson fits right in with players that are already there. If the Hall is the HOVG, it became that way because of the Vet Committee before most of us were born. Really, once Rice got in, there was no way that Dawson wasn't going in.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Dawson is a solid and deserving selection. He was certainly a better player than recent inductees such as Jim Rice, Tony Perez, Bruce Sutter, etc. My guess is that many of the people who feel that Dawson is not deserving (and perhaps Tim Raines is) were too young to watch him during his prime.

I grew up watching Dawson, Raines, and Rice. Not only would I put Dawson on the bottom of that with the ol' stinky eye test,

He was statistically the worst of the 3 as well. Raines' on base percentage was staggeringly better. I wouldn't even say there was any year where Dawson was a DOMINATING player. 1987? My 15 year old kid would have hit 30 homers that year, I think the numbers clearly show that 87 was an aberration for most players.

 

Dawson was a very good player for a long time, but he wasn't a dominator, and he wasn't as good as Rice or Raines.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Anyone who thinks Dawson is HOVG should take a look at all the players that are in the HoF. Dawson fits right in with players that are already there. If the Hall is the HOVG, it became that way because of the Vet Committee before most of us were born. Really, once Rice got in, there was no way that Dawson wasn't going in.

I can live with Dawson being in, even if I don't agree. I think it's a joke that Dawson is in while better players sit out.

[endaround]

What a joke. It's fast becoming the Hall of Very Good players.

 

Dawson is more in line with the Hall of Not Very Good Players. A .323 OBP....