Hall of Fame Trial...........Andre Dawson

[splitterpfj]

I said I'd introduce the next player Friday morning, so I will. Ladies and Gentlemen, meet Andre Dawson.

 

Over 400 homers, over 300 steals, 8 All-Stars, 1 MVP, 1977 NL Rookie of the Year, 4 Silver Sluggers, 8 Gold Gloves. Of the ten similar batters listed on baseballreference.com, 5 are in the Hall, three are not, two not yet eligible.

 

As I did for Rice and Simmons, I have some interesting comparison stats vs a control group of Hall of Fame outfielders, but I'm going to withhold that for now, to hear what some of you have to say first.

 

I say, yes, a player with Hawk's combination of power, speed and defense should be elected.

 

The polls forum is waiting, what do you say?

[JumpinMacFlash]

I say yes, and that he should have been in a couple years ago.

[splitterpfj]

Oh, forgot this part, in last year's voting Dawson got 270 votes, or 52.3%. That was fourth highest among players not elected, 37 votes below Rice.

[jwaltz]

I say yes. If his knees wouldn't have betrayed him I think he would have had 3,000hits and 500 homers. While he didn't reach those milestones, he did have 2774hits, 438hrs, and 314 steals. The hawk also made the All Star team eight times, won eight gold gloves, an NL MVP award, NL ROY award, and had a pretty cool nickname. He was a truly feared hitter for most of his career.

[davego]

Just my opinion, but I thought that Jim Rice might have been a bit better.

[jwaltz]

So is that a yes, or a no?

[7rebmun]

Andre Dawson should definitely be in the HoF. Magical numbers like 3,000 and 500 not withstanding he put up some great numbers. He was very feared.

 

I can't wait to see what other 80s OFers you do number comparisons to. I'd like to see how he stacks up to Rice for comparisons sake, and Dale Murphy (who I have a soft spot for, but probably shouldn't be in).

[RyDogg66]

No.

 

An OF, he had a career OPS of .805. He played 21 seasons and still didnt collect 3,000 hits or 500 HRs. He hit more than 30 Hrs 3 times. Drove in 100 runs only 3 times.

 

He's a very good player, but the HOF is for the very best.

[splitterpfj]

Ok 7reb, here it comes............Rice v Dawson and Dawson v Control Group. Please remember this is per season

 

162 games played = 1 season, S = seasons

 

S Runs Hits 2B 3B HR RBI SB AVE OPS

16.2 85 171 31 6 27 98 19 .279 .805 Dawson

12.8 97 190 29 6 30 113 4 .298 .854 Rice

16.9 97 172 29 4 29 99 10 .292 .877 Group

 

Control group consists of Aaron, Jackson, Kaline, Mays, Puckett, F Robinson, Snider, B Williams, Winfield and Yastrzemski.

[huntsvillefan]

I'd love to say yes to this one. He did all the things I love to watch . He defended well and he ran well, but he just didn't hit well enough and there are too many OF there already.

So regretfully , no.

[gregmag]

I don't think there's any question that Rice was a better hitter than Dawson: OPS+ 128 to 118. Dawson's OBP is almost embarassing -- .323. I don't think Rice belongs in the HoF. So does Hawk have other advantages over Rice?

 

Longevity: Dawson played 800 more games.

 

Speed: Dawson stole 314 bases at a 74% clip. Rice, we'll just say, didn't.

 

Defense: Rice was good; Dawson was better.

 

I don't think that's enough. But it's closer.

 

There's a type here -- call them the RBI men, guys who only played corner OF or 1B, power hitters but not at a world-class level, hit for good averages but not great on-base guys overall. Recent players in this category include Rice, Dawson, Winfield, Perez. (Jackson was a cut above this category; he hit for his whole first decade at a level Rice only touched for three years, and he did it in much tougher conditions.)

 

Players in this group, IMHO, tend to be historically overrated. In order to make the HoF, I think a player like this needs to add longevity to the package. Winfield is the best of the group, and properly makes the cut, because he was as good a hitter as Rice but did it for 800 more games. Perez and Dawson lasted a long time, but they didn't produce at Rice's and Winfield's level.

 

So I'll vote no on Dawson. I would have voted no on Perez as well.

 

Greg.

[colbyjack]

I voted no on Rice, and I'm voting no on Dawson as well. Dawson brought the stolen base and defensive aspect to it, but that still doesn't make up for not reaching some bigger milestones. Both were very good players, but not HOF worthy.

 

I agree that Perez shouldn't have made it in either.

[splitterpfj]

Hi gregmag, thanks for the response.

 

I agree with most of what you said. Rice was definitely a better hitter, but that's the only edge I give him over Dawson.

 

You mentioned how Dawson ran very well and Rice basically didn't run at all. I remember their defense as the same type of comparison. Maybe I'm wrong, but I do not remember Rice as a good fielder, I remember him as a guy who could handle his spot, but who DHed a lot because the Sox had better defensive options. Dawson was an outstanding fielder with good range and one of the best throwing arms of his generation.

 

Mix those things with the difference in longevity and my choice between the two is Dawson. I agree OBP for Dawson is a stat that hurts his case, but I still think he did enough.

[clancyphile]

I'll vote yes on the basis of his career Power/Speed number, which is right between Hall-of-Famers Joe Morgan (5) and Hank Aaron (7), and ahead of Hall-of-Famers Reggie Jackson (9) and Paul Molitor (10).

 

EDIT: Career Power-Speed Number list from Baseball-Reference.com

[RU Rah Rah]

Quote:

---

He's a very good player, but the HOF is for the very best.

---

 

It's too bad that there isn't some way to formally acknowledge guys who fall into this "really good, but not quite great" category (as I'm afraid Dawson does). I guess "HOF JV" probably doesn't have much of a ring to it, though.

[JohnBriggs12]

I'll give him a thumbs up. Rydogg points out he drove in 100 or more only 3 times (actually he did it 4 times) and that he only hit 30 HR 3 times.

 

He would have had another but a third of the 81 season was wiped out by a strike.

 

Montreal wasn't exactly a huge HR park either.

 

His batting numbers aren't quite enough but when you add the SB and his fielding (he led the league in assists twice), i think he qualifies as a H of F'er.

 

Rice on the other hand was a feared hitter who benefitted playing for Boston club full of boppers. My problem with him is that he just didn't sustain it long enough. He never hit more than 20 home runs in a season after turning 33 and unlike Dawson, it was power that was Rice's only asset.

[danzig6767]

IMO the more fringe candidates like Dawson and Rice you let in,it just allows other fringe ones with somewhat comparable numbers to say what about me.The Hall then gets watered down,which i dont think is a good thing.

[plowjockey]

Thanks Danzig. It's a point I've tried to make in other posts, but I did not say it as well. When they let in Tony Perez and Ralph Kiner, it opened the door for dozens of other guys that are "close." Where does it stop? I loved watching both Rice and Dawson, and despite the seemingly better offensive numbers by Rice, I think the awards, the speed and defense makes Dawson the better candidate of the two. However, I voted no on Rice, and must also (regretfully) do so on Dawson.

It's the Hall of Fame. Not the Hall of Really Good Players. I hope the voters keep it exclusive and tough to get into, thus maintaining it as "baseball's shrine."

[brettac1]

I was no on Rice, but I think he's closer than Dawson. Maybe it's just me, but a .323 OBP isn't Hall-worthy for a OF. BP pegs his D as slightly below average for his career, and well above replacement level.

[NYBrewer]

Dawson is cool. He had good numbers and ripped up his knees playing in Montreal or else his numbers would have been better. He wasn't a horses rear end and didn't play for Boston that long. So I say yes.

 

Lets Go Yankees!!!!!!

[AJOHNSON104]

I believe that the Hall of Fame should really be the "Best of the Best", but it hasn't been that way and includes a lot of guys like Dawson and Rice. Thus, unless there is a tightening up of the qualifications, guys like these need to be in the Hall. I'm torn on Rice, but Dawson was a better all around player. The Gold gloves, steals, Silver sluggers, All-star appearances, and especially the MVP show that he was a dominant player in his time.

 

I say yes.

[pogokat]

My memory of dawson was that he was crippled and that his rookie card was worth more than dale murphy's

 

I'm voting no based on his inability to take a walk, which is a very big deal...basically, the hawk was bill hall for 20 years...hall of famer he is not...

 

I think Dale Murphy was better at his peak than rice or dawson though...

[LouisEly]

Montreal wasn't exactly a huge HR park either.

 

And I find it interesting that the year after he left Montreal he hit 49 HRs and 137 RBI.

 

Woulda/coulda/shoulda... history is littered with athletes that would have set records had they not been injured. But we do have to remember that Dawson played half of his career in a park that wasn't a hitter's park. If Dawson could have played pepper with the Green Monster like Rice did... his numbers would have been much better. (And had Dawson played on grass like Rice...)

 

One other thing... he played in the media obscurity of Montreal. He did finish his career with CHI but was past his prime. If he had played in his prime in New York or Boston, he would have been made out to be the next Willie Mays (and would have had much better numbers). Had Rice played in Montreal, he wouldn't have put up nearly as good of numbers and wouldn't have near the notoriety. Plus, Rice could hide as a DH. Dawson played his entire career in the NL so he had to play the field. That is what clearly puts Dawson ahead of Rice in my book.

 

Yes on Dawson. (I'm with Clancy - the list of players with 400+ HRs and 300+ SBs is a very short list.) No on Rice. Dawson is much more deserving.

[nBo Baseball]

Andre Dawson should already be in the Hall of Fame!

[splitterpfj]

Did you know.............Dawson currently ranks 32nd all time in career home runs, and was 22nd overall at the time of his retirement?