Hall of Fame 2010: Andre Dawson elected

[TooLiveBrew]

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?

When I was there, I'm pretty sure Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Honus Wagner, Christy Mathewson, & Walter Johnson all had platinum plaques & diamond-grill teeth. I might be wrong though. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Baldkin]

Kenny Lofton had a career OPS+ of 107, where as Raines was 123, that's really not even close. That's Casey McGeehee to Corey Hart last year.

Those years, "After '87" when he was "Virtually done" he still put up an OPS+ of 115, higher than Lofton's career number. They really aren't close on the offensive side of the ball.

Oh, and after '87, Dawson's OPS+: 114.

 

Was Dawson great and a force of nature before he got hurt? Sure, he was. But, he got hurt. Lots of guys get hurt all the time.

Should Francisco Liriano be a hall of famer? He was unbelievable before he got hurt.

 

It's a sham that Dawson is in, and Blyleven, Alomar, Trammel and Raines are all on the outside looking in.

[DuWayne Steurer]

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.

A Beaneist? Really? Is that even necessary? I like Raines, Raines took walks, so I must be a Billy Beane fanatic. I don't like Billy Beane at all. But I am willing to look at what stats tell me.

 

It's not some 'cool new stat' or some big secret that not making outs is the most important thing a batter can do. Dawson was terrible at this. People can scoff and sneer at walks all they want, a guy carrying a career .323 OBP is making a whole lot of outs, and in the process, costing his team runs.

 

This is why guys like David Eckstein have value. Because people would rather value stuff like RBI, hustle and other intangible nonsense. Tim Raines carried a great OBP, hit for average, hit for enough power to keep teams honest, and was one of the best base stealers of all time. (For the record, most 'Beaneists' find stolen bases all but worthless).

 

Saying Raines was 'ordinary' after 87 is more less just plain false. He played every day til he was 35, and continued after that to be a valuable role player. From 88 to 98 (11 years), his OPS+ was over 100 for every year but one, (in which his OPS+ was 98).

 

It's fine if you want to discount the stats, but you're making statements about a guy that are easily proven to be not true.

[Invader3K]

The Ferrell story is interesting, but I think sells him a bit short, pitchleague. He was an eight time All-Star and held the record for most games caught in the AL until Carlton Fisk broke it in '88. Maybe he shouldn't be in the HoF, but he wasn't a scrub either.

[splitterpfj]

I'm happy for Dawson - I would have voted for him.

 

Every year I say, "What don't the writers see in Blyleven?"....I'll say it again.

 

I'd vote for Raines, Alomar and Larkin too.

[danzig6767]

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

I'm one of the hating the DH rule crowd and even i'd vote Edgar in before Dawson. For me when it comes to the HOF in any sport, i prefer putting in guys that were dominant over at least 5-6-7 year stretches even if say their overall career numbers were lesser than some guys who were more consistently good over a career with less greatness though or if an injury/injuries lessened the career stats of a guy who was dominant over a 5-7 stretch.

 

Edgar Martinez from 1995 to 2001 was arguably the best pure hitter in the game with a roughly 1.000 OPS average over those seasons. Yea i hate that there is a rule in place that allows guys in the AL to not have to put on a glove and field a position, but it is what it is and Edgar was a top 3 hitter in all of baseball over those years that no pitcher would want to face with the game on the line. He was a truly special hitter and i like greatness in the HOF over consistently good players over a long time like say McGriff types.

 

As for the rest, everyone else covered why Blyleven should be in. Roberto Alomar should be an easy call and first ballot IMO. Larkin is also plenty deserving even though i think Alomar was a litter better. No way would i have voted in Dawson, especially over multiple more deserving guys.

[BrewCrewForever]

I think Blyleven will get it next year, or so I hope. Alomar not getting in 1st ballot is kind of ridiculous. I fear Raines may never get in, that will be a crime.

[Ennder]

The fact is that after 87, Raines was a pretty ordinary player. He was never anything to write home about in the field ether

 

Dawson - .287/.328/.568/.896. .378 wOBA,

Raines - .330/.429/.526/.955. .419 wOBA.

 

This isn't even close to an argument given the disparity in their stats, Raines was significantly better. Raines was also better defensively and on the base paths. This is the same old argument though, are HR/RBI more valuable than all the other parts of a baseball player combined. The MVP usually comes down to HR/RBI and more times than not it isn't the best player. At least they are starting to get it right a little more now.

 

After 1987 Raines put up an OPS of .786. Dawson put up a .796 and Raines was with a .378 OBP which makes it more valuable than Dawson's slugging heavy one. He did it over a larger number of PA as well and again playing better defense and better baserunning.

[davego]

I'd have taken Bert, Morris or Raines over Dawson...and I liked Dawson as a player and person.

[mothershipconnection]

...and I liked Dawson as a player and person.

 

I spent nearly 18 years copulating him.

[RockCoCougars]

The fact is that after 87, Raines was a pretty ordinary player. He was never anything to write home about in the field ether

 

Dawson - .287/.328/.568/.896. .378 wOBA,

Raines - .330/.429/.526/.955. .419 wOBA.

 

This isn't even close to an argument given the disparity in their stats, Raines was significantly better. Raines was also better defensively and on the base paths. This is the same old argument though, are HR/RBI more valuable than all the other parts of a baseball player combined. The MVP usually comes down to HR/RBI and more times than not it isn't the best player. At least they are starting to get it right a little more now.

 

After 1987 Raines put up an OPS of .786. Dawson put up a .796 and Raines was with a .378 OBP which makes it more valuable than Dawson's slugging heavy one. He did it over a larger number of PA as well and again playing better defense and better baserunning.

Huh? Dawson won several gold gloves playing right and center while Raines and his pop gun arm never sniffed a gold glove and was mostly hidden in left field. I'll give you the fact that Raines was a better base stealer, but Dawson also stole a ton of bases on those Expos teams. Say what you want about RBI being a meaningless stat, but Raines never got 75 once in his career. Even Ozzie Smith was able to do that. Keep in mind that Raines was not exclusively a lead off hitter either - especially after the mid-80's. I don't care what his OBP was, Raines was not a HOF.

[TooLiveBrew]

Edgar was a top 3 hitter in all of baseball over those years that no pitcher would want to face with the game on the line. He was a truly special hitter and i like greatness in the HOF over consistently good players

 

This really sums up my thoughts on the HoF in general & Martinez in specific. The guy was an absolutely elite player during his era -- DH or not, those are the guys that the HoF was created to honor imho.

[bando1234]

I will say it again, Raines was the best leadoff hitter in the game(not named Henderson). I believe he even has one of the highest stolen bases percentages. A hall of famer.

 

I cant help but notice how close Dawsons(yes while somewhat better but not by much) & Dwight Evans Stats are & each have 8 gold gloves.

 

Last point, for anyone who thinks Alomar & Blyleven are shoe ins for next year, I just checked out next years class. The steroid class is creeping up slowly. Bagwell,Larry Walker & Rafel Palmero. While I dont think Raffy will make it in(due to the roids), I think it could be some tough voting classes coming up.

[Baldkin]

Huh? Dawson won several gold gloves playing right and center while Raines and his pop gun arm never sniffed a gold glove and was mostly hidden in left field. I'll give you the fact that Raines was a better base stealer, but Dawson also stole a ton of bases on those Expos teams. Say what you want about RBI being a meaningless stat, but Raines never got 75 once in his career. Even Ozzie Smith was able to do that. Keep in mind that Raines was not exclusively a lead off hitter either - especially after the mid-80's. I don't care what his OBP was, Raines was not a HOF.

If Raines wouldn't have walked so much, if he'd had Dawson's OBP, converting all those walks into hits and outs based on his career BA... he'd have 3200 hits. Instead, he got on base more than Tony Gwynn, Lou Brock or Roberto Clemente -- all members of the 3,000 hit club.

[RockCoCougars]

Instead, he got on base more than Tony Gwynn, Lou Brock or Roberto Clemente -- all members of the 3,000 hit club.

So did Rusty Staub. Is he a Hall of Famer?

[1992casey]

No, he isn't. But Staub would be an interesting case to examine. I don't think one could make an effective sabermetric case for inclusion. But when looking at traditional stats, one has to wonder why his best vote total was only 8%.

[Invader3K]

Next year's "first timer" class looks kind of lean. Jeff Bagwell stands out. Under normal circumstances, Palmeiro should be a lock, but with the steroid thing it wouldn't surprise me if he gets a vote count similar to McGwire's.

[RockCoCougars]

No, he isn't. But Staub would be an interesting case to examine. I don't think one could make an effective sabermetric case for inclusion. But when looking at traditional stats, one has to wonder why his best vote total was only 8%.

Staub did put up some pretty good sabermetric numbers. At any rate, I think I'll put my annual anti-Raines rant to bed. Not sure why I feel the need to do this each year (used to be Tony Perez), but it's been fun debating with you guys.

[LouisEly]

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.

 

+1. While 1987 was an aberration for all hitters, Dawson still was arguably the best player that year - he was the MVP. If you read the press release today where they interviewed him, he said that going from turf in Montreal to grass in Chicago - "It gave me new life, playing on a natural surface after playing in Montreal on artificial surface for 10 years,'' he said. I can only wonder how much better his numbers would have been had he not played in Montreal.

 

Only three players in history have over 400 HRs and over 300 SBs - Barry Bonds, Willie Mays, Andre Dawson.

 

Kirby Puckett to me is a lot like Dawson. Great years when healthy, and without injuries, could have been in the HOF. Sadly, injuries got in the way. Don't know if they're HOF worthy.

 

Injuries made Dawson average to mediocre for the latter half of his career, but they didn't force him out at a young age.

 

Sounds a lot like what you could say about Raines. Raines was fairly mediocre after the age of 27, ironically the year 1987, so we should throw out Raines' 1987 season too if we are to throw out Dawson's 1987 season. Basically Raines had one good full season after the age of 27 which was 1989 (OPS+ of 131); in 1993 he had a statistically good season but only played in 115 games. His next best OPS+ season was 1997 where he only played 74 games. The only season after 1987 where he played over 150 games was 1991 where he had a .703 OPS and an OPS+ of 98. Those OPS+ numbers are for all positions, so if you just isolated him against just OFs (and excluded pitchers, catchers, 2nd basemen, shortstops) they would be even more average.

 

BTW - Dawson played through 12 knee operations. That in itself is almost HOF worthy.

 

Raines was a great player from 1981 to 1987. I just don't know that is long enough to be HOF worthy.

 

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

That line doesn't do it for me, especially for basically a full-time DH.

[LouisEly]

Saying Raines was 'ordinary' after 87 is more less just plain false. He played every day til he was 35, and continued after that to be a valuable role player. From 88 to 98 (11 years), his OPS+ was over 100 for every year but one, (in which his OPS+ was 98).

 

That statement is more or less just plain false also. Let's look at games played for Raines:

 

1988 - 109 (age 28)

1989 - 145

1990 - 130 (age 30)

1991 - 155

1992 - 144

1993 - 115 (age 33)

 

Only once after age 27 did he play in as many as 150 games in a season and his OPS+ that year was 98. Only three times after age 27 did he play in as many as 140 games in a season. So "played every day" - not when you only rack up 109, 115, and 130 games in a year. That's a lot of games missed, lots of time to rest.

 

And the OPS+ compares OPS to all positions. So as I mentioned, if you isolate him compared to OFs and throw out the catchers, shortstops, and second basemen, those OPS+ numbers are even less impressive. In fact, Raines was a LF (they tried him in CF in 1984 but he was so bad they moved him back to left) so if you compare him only to LFs in his career the OPS+ would be even more unimpressive.

 

And as far as defense goes... there was a reason that Raines played LF and Dawson played RF when they were in the same OF in Montreal.

[RyDogg66]

I guess Jay Mariotti turned in a blank ballot this year. His reasoning? Re: Alomar and Martinez - they are Hall of Famers but the first ballot is sacred. Re: Blyleven and Dawson - if they havent been voted in yet, they dont deserve it (keeping in mind that he voted for Jim Rice on his 15 year and he voted for Blyleven and Dawson last year)

 

According to deadspin.com there is a writer named Lisa Olson who has turned in a blank ballot every year since she has been eligible to vote.

[Ennder]

And the OPS+ compares OPS to all positions. So as I mentioned, if you isolate him compared to OFs and throw out the catchers, shortstops, and second basemen, those OPS+ numbers are even less impressive.

 

Dawson's OPS+ from 1988 on was 114 and his OBP was a meager .319 after 1987. There are players who give 'empty average', Dawson gave 'empty HR'. He just wasn't that great of a player. If you want to measure players by HR/SB and to a lesser extent RBI(he didn't consistently have good RBI totals) then I guess he deserves to be in. If you want to measure players more in depth he doesn't make the cut.

[kramnoj]

According to deadspin.com there is a writer named Lisa Olson who has turned in a blank ballot every year since she has been eligible to vote

 

It looks like someone at deadspin doesn't know what the word "abstain" is. Not shocking, really.

 

"(Editor's Note: While we have seven Hall voters on staff, only six are listed below. Lisa Olson abstained from taking part in the voting process as she has in every election since she became eligible.)" from http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2010/01/06/fanhouses-2010-hall-of-fame-ballot/

[endaround]

Well if anyone can tell me who half the people at MJS who get a ballot are that would be great. Mike Hart? Bill Windler?

 

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/80861712.html

[kramnoj]

Windler is an editor, and they get votes too, sometimes. There's a onetime sports cartoonist that has a vote. I would guess the same is true of Hart (being the editor, not the cartoonist).