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

[bbrauch2000]

I'm going to say yes on Andre. He was one of the most feared hitters in the league throughout the later part of his career with the Cubs and from what I have read and heard about, (I'm way too young to have seen him with Montreal) he was one of the more exciting players in the league.

 

The way I think about the Hall is what I would think when I walked past his plaque in Cooperstown. If I walked past Andre's, it would seem like it belonged there.

[splitterpfj]

I can't believe Dawson doesn't have more support than this.

 

As clancy pointed out, Dawson ranks 6th all-time in power/speed number. For those of you who don't know, this stat is used to show which players have the best combination of speed and power. Current leaders are guys like Abreu and A-Rod.

 

Dawson was 6th best ever! Does that not move anyone to vote yes? Here's the link www.baseball-reference.co...reer.shtml

 

Someone mentioned that Dawson was Billy Hall for 20 years........that's completely ridiculous. Was Hall Rookie of the Year? Does anyone here really think he'll ever win MVP? How about gold gloves? Silver Sluggers? Hall won't ever see any of those things, Dawson did them all, some several times over.

 

Top ten ever in power/speed, backed with outstanding defense, over a period of 16 full seasons.

 

Why is that not a Hall of Famer?

[brettac1]

Isn't power/speed just HR+SB/2?

 

EDIT: Found it in the Stats forum.

[splitterpfj]

I found the formula on baseball-reference.com this morning, posted what they show in the statistical analysis forum.

[splitterpfj]

Scanning through this thread, I believe I counted 11 yes votes, and 10 no votes. The polls forum currently shows 8 yes and 10 no, please place your vote, whether you post your opinion in the thread or not.

 

Thanks.

 

I'm not getting off this one...........Dawson YES.

[brettac1]

If he were a legit HOF'er, it wouldn't be so close. He just isn't good enough. I don't really think Power/Speed is that useful, either. Do you honestly think he's as good as some of the guys he's ahead of in that category? For me, it's a simple "no". If he were really a great, feared hitter, then why didn't he ever walk (the most he walked in a season was 44 times)? If he gets in, it sets the bar even lower for the Hall, and it's too low already.

[gregmag]

Power/speed number is an interesting stat for identifying a certain type of useful player. At bottom, though, it's a freak stat. Is the combination of power and stolen bases more important than the combination of power and getting on base? No, because getting on base is staggeringly more important than stealing bases. Evaluating Andre Dawson's HoF candidacy based on power/speed number is a little like evaluating Brady Anderson's HoF candidacy based on number of 50 home run seasons by a leadoff man or Dave Stewart's HoF candidacy based on consecutive 20-win seasons. It stacks the deck in favor of the player's greatest positive while obscuring much more important negatives. (I say "a little" because obviously discussing Dawson for the HoF is defensible, while discussing Anderson or Stewart wouldn't be.)

 

Also, on Dawson's MVP: Bill James calls it one of the worst MVP selections ever and argues that Dawson wasn't one of th 20 most valuable players in the NL that year. The crux of his argument, in brief, is that all Dawson really did was hit lots of home runs in Wrigley Field for a last-place team. Note that James is on record as a Dawson fan, so this argument isn't part of some hatchet job. You can buy the argument or not, but people keep waving Dawson's MVP around as if it were the key to the kingdom, so I thought James' objection was worth noting.

 

Greg.

[splitterpfj]

Good points Greg and Brett. I try not to use things that are chosen subjectively, like MVP's, All Star appearances etc, when evaluating a player's career. To me, the best way is to look at the numbers and compare that player to his peers.

 

I do mention the awards, etc, because I do think they have at least some meaning, and I know a lot of fans place a great deal of value in that information.

 

I don't mean to say Dawson should be in just because of the power/speed number, I do mean to say that's a great indicator of the productive, versatile player that he was over a long career.

 

I realize Dawson's career OBP was awful, if there is a stat that would make me vote no automatically, it's that one. I still think he did enough, he fielded at a high level, he hit for power and he ran well enough for me.

 

I'm with those of you who have concerns over the lowered standards for Hall of Famers, but to me Dawson isn't the type that does that. There are elected members of the Hall that I totally disagree with, but I'm yes on Dawson.

[bbrauch2000]

"For me, it's a simple "no". If he were really a great, feared hitter, then why didn't he ever walk (the most he walked in a season was 44 times"

 

This may be true, but wasnt he once intentionally walked 5 times in a game? That might be the ultimate respect.

[splitterpfj]

Looks like Andre missed with this crowd too. We're at 0 for 4 right now, although the polls are still in place if you'd like to vote.

 

Does anyone have anything to add on Dawson?

[gbpacker40]

Dawson definately deserves to go. He was one of the best hitters through the 80's. He was a awesome combo of speed and power and great fielding which is pretty rare. His numbers are "good enough" to go and like previous said, injuries cost him a sure shot at the Hall. Id definately give him a heads up over Rice as well.

[LouisEly]

No, because getting on base is staggeringly more important than stealing bases.

 

It is (in some circles) now. Twenty years ago nobody gave a damn about it. I don't recall seeing OBP on the back of any of my baseball cards from the '80s, but SBs were on it. It wasn't stressed back then, so why downgrade a guy for it now?

 

And if 49 HRs and 137 RBIs only made him the 20th best player in the NL that year, I'd like to know who where the 19 other guys who had better seasons that year.

[Snuffzilla]

hEY sPLITTER...

 

Some great Players on that list. Your post made sense 2 me but lost some serious Juice when I saw Grissom @ #16.

 

If that guy ever gets mentioned in a HOF sentence I'm gonna apply! http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/eyes.gif

[splitterpfj]

Hi snuffzilla, thanks for your response.

 

I don't mean to say the Speed/Power number should automatically put a guy in or keep a guy out of the Hall of Fame.

 

What I do mean to say is, if a guy's career totals are up there, if he's good enough to seriously consider, that's a stat that can help make the difference in his favor.

 

No, Dawson didn't get to 3000 hits or 500 home runs, so he needs something to make his case. To me, the 400 homers, 300 steals and outstanding defense make that case for him.

 

Reggie had to hit 500 homers to get in, he was weak fielder who hit .262 for his career, with more strikeouts than anyone in history.

 

Wade Boggs had to get 3000 hits because he offered no speed or power.

 

Dawson didn't do enough of any one thing to get into the Hall, but he did everything at a high level for a long time, he was a complete player who's greatness should not be overlooked.

[J Brew Crew1]

Yes.

 

MVP for a last place team. I think he was better in Montreal than Chicago and he was good in Chicago. I think there were several years he was one of the top 5 players in baseball. Also, a classy guy.

 

J

[splitterpfj]

With the inclusion of Manny and A-Rod this season, 40 players have hit 400 or more home runs in their career.

 

Of these, there are only three eligible players who have not been elected to the Hall of Fame. They are, Dave Kingman, Dawson and Darrell Evans.

[augie46]

I wonder how many people posting here saw Andre Dawson play for the Expos. He was one the best players in baseball (maybe the best in the early 1980s). Before he hurt his knees playing on the parking lot they called Olympic Stadium he was possibly the best defensive centerfielder in baseball. He had one of the greatest throwing arms I have seen from a CF, but he seldom got to throw baserunners out because people just wouldn't think of trying to advance on him. His power numbers look better when put in the context of the time he spent in Montreal, 30 home runs in a season were a lot during that time and especially in that park. He really overshadowed Gary Carter, a HOF catcher, in Montreal. The Hawk definitely belongs in the HOF. Also, I would rate him ahead of Dale Murphy. Dawson was better at his prime and his prime lasted longer. This may be sacriligious, but I think he was a more productive centerfielder than Robin Yount.

[splitterpfj]

There are no big guns among the first-timers, maybe Hawk gets in this year?

[TacoBelliard]

Whenever anyone asks me about my favorite player, I tell them three things about the Hawk.

 

First, I think he was the only player to ever be intentionally walked five times in one game.

 

Secondly, Dawson is one of only four players in major league history to have 400 homeruns, 2500 hits, and 300 stolen bases. The others are some guys named Bonds, Bonds and Mayes.

 

Thirdly, when he was ejected from a game for arguing a third strinke he was fined $1000. Upon paying the fine, on the memo line of the check to MLB he wrote "Donation to the blind."

 

A cleat HOFer.

[JeffSackmann]

I'm VERY torn about Andre.

 

I first got into baseball in '87 and the one cable channel with baseball that I had was WGN ...naturally, I was a Cubs fan and Andre Dawson was my favorite player. Didn't hurt that he's a class act...he remains my all-time favorite. If you had asked me when he retired whether he deserved to go in, I wouldn't have thought twice about it.

 

Now, though, I've been educated along with everybody else about more advanced stats, I've learned about park factors and the relatively weakness of his '87 MVP ...about the value of taking a walk... and I'm not so sure.

 

Here's how I see it. If you're a "small HOF" proponent, there's no way he's in. Then again, you want to exclude half the people who are in already.

 

If you're of the inclusive sort, Rice, Dawson, maybe even Murphy go in. Unfortunately most of us fall in the middle somewhere.

 

What makes Andre so hard to judge, as many previous posters have suggested, is how to account for a) his relatively lack of notoriety during his playing days, especially his best ones in Montreal, and b) his injuries. If he was in fact a stellar defensive CF (some metrics dispute that, but I don't know enough to really come down on one side or the other) for all that time in Montreal, along with the power and speed, it seems like that might push him over the top. CF defense is SO important, that the value of somebody like him or Bernie or Jim Edmonds is substantially increased because their production is coming from that spot. (Now, I don't want to open the can of worms on either of those guys' future with HOF voting).

 

Then his injuries come into play. I think it's reasonable to say that if he hadn't had so many problems with turf and had to work so hard just to get out on the field every day, he would've played center for a lot longer. That, more than anything, is how the injuries complicate things for me. If he had put up his career numbers as an average-or-better CF, it'd be a lock. But as a corner OF, it's a different story. Fair? Maybe not.

 

I don't think the notoriety should matter much in making a judgment, but you know it does with many of the voters. I have no doubt that if Dawson had played for a perennial contender AND been a gregarious guy, he would've been ushered in Puckett-style by now.

 

But so many arguments have to come down to this 400 HR / 2500 H, 300 SB thing, which does put him in incredible company. Yep, great, but the other guys who did it were so much better, in so many ways. Ultimately, it shows Dawson is a guy who did a lot of things very well, and his package of talents was rare to all come in one person. But he was never a really great player.

 

Obviously from my comments so far, I'm totally on the fence. If I had a BBWAA vote, I'd probably say yes. The stathead in me has to say no in order to be consistent with all the other guys I know I need to say no to. Tough call all around.

 

---

www.BrewCrewBall.com

[splitterpfj]

ESPN's case for Dawson.

 

sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=rogers_phil&id=2274444

[brettac1]

Well, it it Phil Rogers, who is a Chicago guy, and his reasoning is lacking:

 

If Kirby Puckett is in the Hall, if Tony Perez is in the Hall, if Gary Carter, Ryne Sandberg and Ozzie Smith are in the Hall, Dawson needs to be there, too.

 

Okay, if Robinson is in, so should Santo. It's silly logic.