Hall of Fame 2010: Andre Dawson elected

[Ennder]

Dawson was about the 9th most deserving person on the ballot, just pathetic.

[joepepsi]

Does this mean Dave Parker must now be elected next year? Dwight Evans was a much better hitter and right fielder than Dawson, but I don't hear anyone clamoring for his enshrinement.

 

Dawson was a very good player, but not deserving of the HOF. Maybe not the worst selection, but probably among the bottom group of HOF'ers.. Lots of players as good or better never even get consideration. I think he benefits by being a good guy to the media, positive role model, and admired teammate. I'm happy for him, but like Rice, probably would never have voted for him.

[Outlander]

I'm surprised about these results. I wouldn't have been surprised if Dawson was elected along with Alomar, Blyleven or Larkin but out of that ballot he definitely wasn't the best. Looking at the list for next year it looks like Bagwell, Blyleven and Alomar will be getting elected in 2011,

[CheezWizHed]

Sounds like Blyleven is now up for the Cow Milking Hall of Fame... (sorry no link)

[Tbadder]

At this point the Hall is becoming so diluted that it is becoming less and less relavent. Except for the initial election every generation has made huge mistakes. The Hall will eventually be the equivalent of the Grammys or Oscars--kind of a funny headshaking experience.

[kramnoj]

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....

I'm going to guess this was a failed attempt at humor.

 

Dawson certainly provided plenty of value on offense, and of course he started over 1000 games in CF so he provided defensive value as well.

[Invader3K]

I have never been to the Hall, but I can't imagine that if someday when I visit it, my experience is going to be diminished that much by seeing an Andre Dawson plaque. I guess I don't think voting in the borderline guys diminishes the accomplishments of the other HoFers, or what the Hall means to baseball as a whole. And keep in mind I said I wouldn't have voted for Dawson.

[GAME05]

and that HOF bar keeps getting lower and lower.

 

I'm rooting for Mike Greenwell and Ellis Burks next year. they each had a span of games in their careers where they were truly above average. Glen Braggs went 3-4 once with a HR, so he should get in, too.

 

Blyleven will get in next year on the basis of writers feeling sorry for him that he just missed it the year before.

[topper09er]

Blyleven will get in next year on the basis of writers feeling sorry for him that he just missed it the year before.

Why doesnt Blyleven deserve to be in? 5th most Ks all time, and 60 shoutouts rank him 9th all time and 4th in the live ball era behind only Spahn (63), Ryan and Seaver (61). He ranks 91st in CG with 242 but 9th in shutouts. His 287 wins are still 27th most ever and he lost 11 CGs allowing 1 or 0 ER. He mostly played for bad teams and has the record for most no-decicions ever in a single season with 20. In his few postseason appearances (for 2 WS winnings teams in 79 and 87) he went 5-1 with a 2.47 ERA in 47.1 IP with 36 K and only 8 BB.

 

If he played for slightly better offensive teams and had 300 wins or the Yankees/Red Sox/Cubs he would easily be in.

[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.

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.

Dawson hit 400 homers and stole 300 bases during a time when 400 homers meant something. He won one MVP and finished 2nd twice while playing in Montreal. He won a rookie of the year. Before his knees totally went to pot, he also was one of the best defensive outfielders of his time, with one of the best arms ever. Yes, his power numbers were aided somewhat by 1987 and playing several years in Wrigley, but that's negated somewhat by him playing over half his career for the Expos in cavernous Olympic Stadium.

[Bring Back the Stein]

Dawson's flaccid career got a bolt of Viagra by playing his glue-factory years at the sewer that is Wrigley Field. His HOF chances were further helped by a whiny fan base. (Jim Rice anyone?) However, I will gladly make a trade with the baseball gods for a Dawson in the HOF, versus a Ron Santo.

[TooLiveBrew]

Edgar Martinez getting such a low tally is just an embarrassment, imo... meanwhile, ERIC freaking KARROS actually got a vote or two? Unreal.

[crewcrazy]

How is Robbie Alomar not a Hall of Fame player? Heck, Jon Heyman voted for him, and Heyman wrote three pages of flimsy reasons why people shouldn't vote for Blyleven. Is it the spitting at the ump thing? The failed Mets experiment?

 

But this is coming from a guy who doesn't think writers should hold out on voting for a guy on the basis of him being "worthy" of a first ballot induction, so who knows...maybe I'm just crazy.

[Invader3K]

Yeah, I think the "first ballot" thing is silly too. I like Tom Haudricourt's idea that guys shouldn't have to "pledge" to get into the Hall of Fame. If a guy gets voted in on the first ballot, does he get a platinum plaque instead or something?

[Schlitz001]

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.

I won't argue that Dawson was a better player then Rice or Raines, but you can't just throw out his 1987 season. Even if most players had a better year in 1987, Dawson's was the best of them as evidenced by his MVP trophy.

[1992casey]

However, I will gladly make a trade with the baseball gods for a Dawson in the HOF, versus a Ron Santo.

 

I support Santo's inclusion--if it ever happens. The favor I'd look for from the baseball gods would be to induct Dawson with an Expos cap.

[joepepsi]

Dale Murphy was probably better in 1987, or at least as good. Dawson had the gaudy RBI totals though.

[Ennder]

I won't argue that Dawson was a better player then Rice or Raines, but you can't just throw out his 1987 season. Even if most players had a better year in 1987, Dawson's was the best of them as evidenced by his MVP trophy.

It would be a more compelling argument if Raines hadn't had a MUCH better year than him 1987. Dawson shouldn't have that MVP either.

[MessiahRp]

I'd probably have given the '87 NL MVP to Eric Davis myself. But I am biased.

 

Anyway, Dawson really doesn't belong in the Hall. I have a very hard time seeing how Alomar and Blyleven don't get in this year. Blyleven being 13 wins short of 300 and that somehow is a reason to keep him out is crap IMO. The guy had 15 losses when he allowed 1 or 0 ER. He had more shutouts in his career than the entire American League for the past 18 years combined. Those are sick stats. Get him some more run support and he's well over 300.

 

Alomar's one of the best 2-3 2B in my lifetime. I saw one pathetic writer, Marty Noble, explain on mlb.com that he was not voting for Alomar because of the Hirschbeck incident and because he "spit in the faces on NY Mets fans" during his time there with his "apathy". That guy deserves to have his vote taken away. Along with the morons that voted for David Segui, Robin Ventura and Eric Karros.

 

My HOF ballot would look like this:

Blyleven

Alomar

Larkin

Raines

Trammell

 

To me Lee Smith and Jack Morris are the next level fringe guys I can't really justify getting in.

 

Rp

[DuWayne Steurer]

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.

I won't argue that Dawson was a better player then Rice or Raines, but you can't just throw out his 1987 season. Even if most players had a better year in 1987, Dawson's was the best of them as evidenced by his MVP trophy.

I didn't say Dawson's 87 should be thrown out, I said it was an aberration. And because of his absolute refusal to draw walks, his 87 wasn't really a DOMINANT year. How a guy can hit 49 homers and still fall short of a .900 OPS is beyond me. Yeah, he had a lot of RBI. RBI is almost exclusively determined by who hits in front of you and what their OBP is.

 

Raine's 87 was significantly better than Dawson's as well as the fact that Raines played on a winning team that year. The MVP that year (as it is many years) was a joke.

[Invader3K]

I'd also add again that now with Dawson in, and Rice going in last year, I feel Dave Parker has an even stronger case. I don't get why he's been so ignored.

[bacon06]

Yeah, I think the "first ballot" thing is silly too. I like Tom Haudricourt's idea that guys shouldn't have to "pledge" to get into the Hall of Fame. If a guy gets voted in on the first ballot, does he get a platinum plaque instead or something?

This is what I do not understand. How can a player be more "hall worthy" from one year to the next? They aren't adding any more numbers to their stats. Once a player is done playing and they become eligible for the hall, then they should be voted in if they are good enough. Those baseball writers are just curmudgeonly people if they think being a first ballot hall of famer is a big deal. Of all the players in the hall of fame, I have no idea who was voted in first time and who wasn't.

[Invader3K]

One of those quirky statistics that probably helped Dawson's case: There are only three players to ever hit more than 400 HRs and steal over 300 bases. The other two are Bonds and Mays.

[pitchleague]

I don't have a problem with Dawson in the Hall of Fame. I'm not happy that Bert missed--he belonged in there at least 5 years ago. Alomar probably belongs but he should make it next season.

 

As for those that were questioning the vote for Eric Karros and other guys, I will re-post what I've now posted the last 3 or 4 years. It's a good story about why these guys get votes and how it backfired on the writers one year. If you've read it before, skip it. If you haven't, enjoy!

 

 

 

Every year, a player is bound to get what is called a "courtesy vote" for the Hall of Fame. This courtesy vote is pretty much an "agreement" by a writer or broadcaster who got to be pretty good friends with a player over the years. When the player then retired, the two of them, knowing full well that the player was not Hall of Fame material but only Hall of Very Good Material, came to an agreement that the writer/broadcaster friend of his would cast a vote for the player so he'd be able to tell his grandchildren that yes, he was given a vote for the Baseball Hall of Fame. It happens all time.

 

Luckily, the voters in these cases do their homework now so they don't have a repeat of the Wes Ferrell induction of 1984. It was through the veteran's committee vote, but it still worked out in exactly the same way. Here's the story in case you don't know it:

 

 

"Rick Ferrell was a pretty good catcher form 1929 through 1947, a pretty good farm system director and general manager for Detroit, and, by all accounts, a pretty good guy. Rick played eighteen years (admittedly in eight of these he didn't catch 100 games in a season). He hit .281 lifetime, with twenty-eight career homers. His brother Wes had hit .280 lifetime, with twenty-eight homer. Of course, Wes was a pitcher. While he was still eligible in the writers' balloting, Rick got one vote in 1956, another in 1958, and a third in 1960. For years, reporters covering the Committee on Veterans would tell tales of how its memeber, old sportswriters, players, and executives, would cast 'courtesy votes' for old buddies, knowing full well that these guys would never actually get elected. It was a nice, folksy touch. You know: Hey, Smiley, you didn't get in, but look, I voted for you, old pal, old sport. Everybody was happy but nobody got hurt. Then in 1984, it happened. Apparently everyone case a courtesy vote for Rick Ferrell. Bingo--he's a Hall of Famer."

 

--from The Big Show. Olbermann and Patrick, 1997.

 

 

[RockCoCougars]

I didn't say Dawson's 87 should be thrown out, I said it was an aberration. And because of his absolute refusal to draw walks, his 87 wasn't really a DOMINANT year. How a guy can hit 49 homers and still fall short of a .900 OPS is beyond me. Yeah, he had a lot of RBI. RBI is almost exclusively determined by who hits in front of you and what their OBP is.

 

Raine's 87 was significantly better than Dawson's as well as the fact that Raines played on a winning team that year. The MVP that year (as it is many years) was a joke.

Thats what it comes down to with the Beaneists. Dawson didn't take a lot of walks, so his OPS was relatively low. If follows that simply because Raines had a higher OBP he was the better player. The fact is that after 87, Raines was a pretty ordinary player. He was never anything to write home about in the field ether. Maybe Bill James has some stats that show Raines should be in, but if he is in you have to put Kenny Lofton in as well because they are almost exactly the same guy except that Lofton was a centerfielder. In my view Lofton is not HOF and neither is Raines.