PDA

View Full Version : why is Andre Dawson not in the HOF?



Will M
12-31-2008, 06:39 PM
career OPS+ 119
1591 rbis
438 HR
314 SB with 74% success rate
8 All Star games
One MVP award. #2 in MVP voting a different year.
ROY
Four GGs in CF & four more in RF.

Compared to Perez he has a similar lifetime OPS+ , HR and rbi totals.
He had speed and great defense which Tony didn't have.

westofyou
12-31-2008, 06:49 PM
Because he made an out 70% of the time he came to the plate is my best guess.

Most hits in MLB history with a .325 ob% or less


CAREER
OBA <= .325

HITS H OBA
1 Brooks Robinson 2848 .322
2 Andre Dawson 2774 .323
3 Bill Buckner 2715 .321
4 Luis Aparicio 2677 .311
5 Rabbit Maranville 2605 .318
6 Willie Davis 2561 .311
7 Dave Concepcion 2326 .322
8 Gary Gaetti 2280 .308
9 Tommy Corcoran 2252 .289
10 Marquis Grissom 2251 .318

Will M
12-31-2008, 06:54 PM
Because he made an out 70% of the time he came to the plate is my best guess.

Most hits in MLB history with a .325 ob% or less


CAREER
OBA <= .325

HITS H OBA
1 Brooks Robinson 2848 .322
2 Andre Dawson 2774 .323
3 Bill Buckner 2715 .321
4 Luis Aparicio 2677 .311
5 Rabbit Maranville 2605 .318
6 Willie Davis 2561 .311
7 Dave Concepcion 2326 .322
8 Gary Gaetti 2280 .308
9 Tommy Corcoran 2252 .289
10 Marquis Grissom 2251 .318

so what? OPS+ is the stat to measure hitters not OBP. his OPS+ puts him in HOF territory. add in his gold gloves & speed and he should be in the HOF.

RedsManRick
12-31-2008, 07:13 PM
Setting aside the issue of whether OPS+ is really the stat you want to use, 119 isn't close to making a HOF argument. Other guys of the era with a career OPS+ of 119 include Andy Van Slyke, Chris Hoiles, and Paul O'Neil (120). 119 is in the solidly above average category.

I agree that the Hawk merits consideration for many of the reasons you mentioned, but OPS+ is hardly the best argument.

Baseball-Reference's HOF monitoring stats tell a similar tale:

Black Ink: Batting - 11 (208) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 164 (67) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 44.1 (106) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 117.5 (121) (Likely HOFer > 100)

Basically, it looks like there's a case to be made, but he's hardly a slam-dunk.

sonny
12-31-2008, 08:13 PM
He has not amassed enough votes to get in. But thats just my best guess.

RedsBaron
12-31-2008, 08:46 PM
I believe that Andre Dawson is more deserving of HOF induction than are contemporary outfielders Jim Rice, Dave Parker and Dale Murphy. Dawson's career numbers were hurt by his having Montreal as his home park for most of his prime seasons (although he did benefit from having Wrigley Field later in his career). Dawson was having perhaps his finest season in 1981, but the strike/lockout wiped out a third of the schedule. BaseballReference.com's Stats Neutralizer shows Dawson as having a 40 HR/43 SB season in 1981 had the full schedule been played and had Dawson played in a neutral park in a 715 runs per team era.

nate
12-31-2008, 09:04 PM
so what? OPS+ is the stat to measure hitters not OBP. his OPS+ puts him in HOF territory. add in his gold gloves & speed and he should be in the HOF.

Here are all the non-pitchers in the hall with a sub .325 OBP:



Spanning Multiple Seasons or entire Careers,
From 1901 to 2008,
Hall Of Fame Members,
Played 50% of games at C, 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, LF, CF, RF, DH, or OF,
(requiring OBP<=.325),
sorted by greatest BA


Cnt Player BA OBP From To
+----+-----------------+-----+-----+----+----+
1 Brooks Robinson .267 .322 1955 1977
2 Luis Aparicio .262 .311 1956 1973
3 Bobby Wallace .262 .325 1901 1918
4 Joe Tinker .262 .308 1902 1916
5 Bill Mazeroski .260 .299 1956 1972
6 Dick Williams .260 .312 1951 1964
7 Rabbit Maranville .258 .318 1912 1935
8 Bill McKechnie .251 .301 1907 1920
9 Jim O'Rourke .250 .250 1904 1904
10 Leo Durocher .247 .299 1925 1945
11 Branch Rickey .239 .304 1905 1914
12 Sam Thompson .226 .250 1906 1906
13 Sparky Anderson .218 .282 1959 1959
14 Willard Brown .179 .179 1947 1947
15 Walter Alston .000 .000 1936 1936
16 Dan Brouthers .000 .000 1904 1904


Even thought that's parsed to non-pitchers, some of those guys aren't in the hall because of what they did on the field so in reality, it's even a smaller list. Is .325 a magic bar for HoF induction? No. But the greatest hitters of all time will have a career of that kind of production and better.

BCubb2003
12-31-2008, 09:47 PM
Because he's not famous?

Don't mind me. I'm alone in my beliefs on this one.

klw
12-31-2008, 10:03 PM
Because he's not famous?

Don't mind me. I'm alone in my beliefs on this one.

Atually I kind of feel the same way. I think that this really should point to guys like Rose, Canseco and McGuire being in the Hall. My guess is Dawson is not in the Hall is because it is 9pm on New Year's Eve and the place is locked up for the night. Rose I could see being in there. He probably snuck in to lurk around.

GADawg
01-01-2009, 03:09 AM
which kind of hall of fame mindset do you have?

I heard Bob Boone talking about the HOF the other day and he considers the Hall strictly a museum and feels they should enshrine many people each year(maybe he's trying to figure a way in). OTOH many believe(myself included)that the Hall is and should be the path to immortality and that the criteria should be very stringent. Someone(maybe Billy Ripken)was saying that when they look down the list of those eligible that they ask whether or not that player is worthy of standing beside the likes of Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, etc..etc..


The latter mindset would end the arguments on alot of the fringe players like Dawson and leave the Hall to the Griffey's of the world while the Bob Boone mindset would make for some long induction days around Cooperstown.

Which do you prefer?

dougdirt
01-01-2009, 03:16 AM
Good question Dawg.

Personally, I am all for inducting a lot of players. Adding someone like Dawson doesn't take anything away from a guy like Clemente or Ruth or Williams. It would however add more to the HOF in terms of more baseball history and I am all for that. I understand that eventually that would lead to a space problem, but thats not a concern of mine to deal with either.

kpresidente
01-01-2009, 07:59 AM
Maybe notable players who aren't HOF worthy should have a seperate induction. Vince Coleman comes to mind. Not a HOF career by any stretch, but all those SBs are something people will talk about for years and years. It's a part of baseball history. Also leaves a place for guys like Bonds and Clemens, who don't deserve the honor of being a HOFer, but their careers can't be ignored.

RedsBaron
01-01-2009, 09:54 AM
OTOH many believe(myself included)that the Hall is and should be the path to immortality and that the criteria should be very stringent. Someone(maybe Billy Ripken)was saying that when they look down the list of those eligible that they ask whether or not that player is worthy of standing beside the likes of Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, etc..etc..


The latter mindset would end the arguments on alot of the fringe players like Dawson and leave the Hall to the Griffey's of the world while the Bob Boone mindset would make for some long induction days around Cooperstown.


The Hall of Fame has not had the "very stringent" criteria whereby an Andre Dawson can be considered a mere "fringe" player for more than a half century. If you want to limit the HOF to the Ruths and Ted Williamses, then expell Ray Schalk, Joe Tinker, Fred Lindstrom, Lloyd Waner, Phil Rizzuto, Pop Haines, Waite Hoyt, Rube Marquard, Herb Pennock, Eppa Rixey, Joe Kelley, Jim Bottomley, Johnny Evers, Earle Combs, Elmer Flick, Red Faber, Travis Jackson, Chick Hafey, Kirby Puckett, Catfish Hunter, Joe Gordon, Frank Chance, Jim Bunning, and a score of other current Hall of Famers whose careers fell far short of being Ruth or Williams.
Andre Dawson is, in my opinion, a borderline Hall of Fame candidate, but, if inducted, he sure would not be the worst guy there.

Will M
01-01-2009, 01:01 PM
The Hall of Fame has not had the "very stringent" criteria whereby an Andre Dawson can be considered a mere "fringe" player for more than a half century. If you want to limit the HOF to the Ruths and Ted Williamses, then expell Ray Schalk, Joe Tinker, Fred Lindstrom, Lloyd Waner, Phil Rizzuto, Pop Haines, Waite Hoyt, Rube Marquard, Herb Pennock, Eppa Rixey, Joe Kelley, Jim Bottomley, Johnny Evers, Earle Combs, Elmer Flick, Red Faber, Travis Jackson, Chick Hafey, Kirby Puckett, Catfish Hunter, Joe Gordon, Frank Chance, Jim Bunning, and a score of other current Hall of Famers whose careers fell far short of being Ruth or Williams.
Andre Dawson is, in my opinion, a borderline Hall of Fame candidate, but, if inducted, he sure would not be the worst guy there.

Dawson's career stacks up well with other guys already in the HOF.
You can say that he was very good but not great but several other very good players are already in the HOF. I bring up Perez as an example. If Perez is in Dawson should be in.

George Anderson
01-01-2009, 01:09 PM
Andre Dawson is, in my opinion, a borderline Hall of Fame candidate, but, if inducted, he sure would not be the worst guy there.

Pretty much my feelings to. Sure his OPS is lousy but 400 HR's, 1500 RBI's, 300 SB's and 8 Gold Gloves pretty much speaks for itself.

I think Dawsons biggest problem is a large part of his success was played in relative obscurity in Montreal. The same could be said for Raines. Had they had pin stripes on their uniforms they likely would have been first balloters.

BCubb2003
01-01-2009, 01:16 PM
I think Hall of Famers should have dominated their era at their position, not just have several All-Star seasons. Maybe a Hall of All-Stars? But I know there are flaws in this position. An excellent player in a strong era at one position might not get in, while an excellent player in a weak era in that position would. There's a stat about this isn't there? Plus, we can always point to the old-time shortstops and the like who are in because some old-time sportswriter in Brooklyn waxed poetic about them. It's just quite a drop-off from Ted Williams to Andre Dawson.

Big Klu
01-01-2009, 01:39 PM
which kind of hall of fame mindset do you have?

I heard Bob Boone talking about the HOF the other day and he considers the Hall strictly a museum and feels they should enshrine many people each year(maybe he's trying to figure a way in). OTOH many believe(myself included)that the Hall is and should be the path to immortality and that the criteria should be very stringent. Someone(maybe Billy Ripken)was saying that when they look down the list of those eligible that they ask whether or not that player is worthy of standing beside the likes of Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, etc..etc..


The latter mindset would end the arguments on alot of the fringe players like Dawson and leave the Hall to the Griffey's of the world while the Bob Boone mindset would make for some long induction days around Cooperstown.

Which do you prefer?

Bob Boone's opinion echoes that of the NFL. If you have ever been to the Pro Football Hall Of Fame in Canton, they induct a lot of people every year--some of whom you may not have ever heard of before. But it doesn't detract from the experience.

George Anderson
01-01-2009, 01:43 PM
The latter mindset would end the arguments on alot of the fringe players like Dawson and leave the Hall to the Griffey's of the world while the Bob Boone mindset would make for some long induction days around Cooperstown.

Which do you prefer?


I prefer a museum for the very elite of the game and not for the very good. However the bar has already been set and with marginal candidates already in like Catfish Hunter, Earle Combes, Lloyd Waner, George Kelly and Joe Tinker so I don't see it being fair to leave players like Bert Blyleven, Andre Dawson and Alan Trammell out who IMO were superior players to those above.

I am not one to shake up the status quo on to many things in the world but I would love to see the whole Baseball HOF take a different path or maybe get more informed voters.

BCubb2003
01-01-2009, 01:52 PM
One thing to consider is that there's the Hall of Fame, and then there's the baseball museum. The hallowed marble shrine with the plaques really should be for the elites of the game, while the museum takes note of all the notable events and people in the game, including Pete Rose. But folks are right. The bar has been set inconsistently over the years. Maybe it'll be up to the most knowledgable fans to develop an informal Hall of Fame Elite. I suppose the Players of the Century promotion was an attempt at that. Maybe there are HOF-ers and POC-ers

Scrap Irony
01-01-2009, 01:53 PM
Was Andre among the two or three very best players at his position in his era? 8 All Star games and 8 Gold Gloves make a case for him. In his prime, Dawson was among the very best players in the game, a true 5-tool talent. His knees wore out long before the rest of his body, so most of America didn't see the "real" Hawk. In fact, during his Cubbie MVP season, he was as close to Bonds as anyone I had seen before or since. Pitchers avoided him like the plague, as no one else on that team could hurt you. But he was still a shell of his former self, playing on the knees of a septagenarian.

I think guys like Dawson, Jim Rice, and Dave Parker kind of get shafted because of the era in which they played. All three (along with Raines, who I think is the second or third-best leadoff hitter of all time) belong in the Hall. So, too, does Concepcion, as he was clearly the second-best SS of his era.

Big Klu
01-01-2009, 02:14 PM
Was Andre among the two or three very best players at his position in his era? 8 All Star games and 8 Gold Gloves make a case for him. In his prime, Dawson was among the very best players in the game, a true 5-tool talent. His knees wore out long before the rest of his body, so most of America didn't see the "real" Hawk. In fact, during his Cubbie MVP season, he was as close to Bonds as anyone I had seen before or since. Pitchers avoided him like the plague, as no one else on that team could hurt you. But he was still a shell of his former self, playing on the knees of a septagenarian.

I think guys like Dawson, Jim Rice, and Dave Parker kind of get shafted because of the era in which they played. All three (along with Raines, who I think is the second or third-best leadoff hitter of all time) belong in the Hall. So, too, does Concepcion, as he was clearly the second-best SS of his era.

Second-best?! Who do you submit as better than Concepcion during his era? I think he was clearly the best SS of the 70's.

RedEye
01-01-2009, 02:19 PM
I love how topics like this start popping up when actual roster construction becomes too depressing to keep generating new threads.

Carry on.

Will M
01-01-2009, 03:32 PM
I love how topics like this start popping up when actual roster construction becomes too depressing to keep generating new threads.

Carry on.

that is exactly the reason i started this thread.

isn't it better than endless depressing threads about the same issues.

RedEye
01-01-2009, 04:04 PM
that is exactly the reason i started this thread.

isn't it better than endless depressing threads about the same issues.

Yes. And I love it. But I'm just too depressed to add anything substantive to it. Sorry.

Scrap Irony
01-01-2009, 06:57 PM
Second-best?! Who do you submit as better than Concepcion during his era?

Fregosi early and Ozzie late.

westofyou
01-01-2009, 08:33 PM
Fregosi early and Ozzie late.

However Fregosi was done playing SS by the middle of the 71 season, Davey had been in the league for about 162 games played by mid season 1971.

Though as a hitter he does trump Davey.

From 1970-1978 here are the SS that had over 100 PA's in that span. Bolded are the the guys who topped an OPS of .650, 72% of them had an OPS under .650 in that span.



AT BATS AB OPS
1 Larry Bowa 5376 .621
2 Bert Campaneris 4791 .648
3 Don Kessinger 4788 .646
4 Chris Speier 4237 .684
5 Freddie Patek 4236 .634
6 Dave Concepcion 4112 .685
7 Mark Belanger 3921 .589
8 Roger Metzger 3915 .582
9 Bill Russell 3667 .658
10 Tim Foli 3406 .587
11 Bud Harrelson 2917 .618
12 Toby Harrah 2897 .721
13 Ed Brinkman 2823 .592
14 Rick Burleson 2793 .685
15 Robin Yount 2647 .671
16 Bucky Dent 2633 .631
17 Frank Duffy 2558 .590
18 Frank Taveras 2431 .616
19 Enzo Hernandez 2327 .550
20 Luis Aparicio 1978 .665
21 Leo Cardenas 1888 .642
22 Gene Michael 1845 .559
23 Roy Smalley 1804 .695
24 Mario Guerrero 1704 .610
25 Danny Thompson 1663 .626
26 Darrel Chaney 1652 .596
27 Tom Veryzer 1604 .588
28 Jim Mason 1513 .534
29 Garry Templeton 1481 .724
30 Dave Chalk 1442 .595
31 Marty Perez 1393 .595
32 Ivan DeJesus 1374 .678
33 Larvell Blanks 1322 .659
34 Dal Maxvill 1299 .531
35 Gene Alley 1279 .638
36 Mike Tyson 1259 .592
37 Maury Wills 1255 .621
38 Rick Auerbach 1145 .573
39 Jim Fregosi 1072 .735
40 Jerry Terrell 1052 .629
41 Craig Reynolds 1048 .653
42 Hector Torres 1022 .584
43 Fred Stanley 963 .589
44 Jack Heidemann 932 .539


In the years 2000-2008 MLB had 53 SS that had at least 1000PA's as a SS. of these 53 only 6 (10.3% ) had an OPS less than .650.




2000-2008

AT BATS AB OPS
1 Cesar Izturis 2912 .627
2 Rey Sanchez 1440 .620
T3 Rey Ordonez 1232 .622
T3 Juan Castro 1232 .611
5 John McDonald 1063 .588
6 Ramon Santiago 975 .636


The game has changed.

Raisor
01-01-2009, 08:41 PM
The game has changed.

Yet some people just don't want to believe it.

Unassisted
01-01-2009, 09:28 PM
Didn't Dawson stiff-arm the media for a few years with a no-interviews policy? Some of those old sportswriters have long memories.

Topcat
01-02-2009, 05:59 AM
career OPS+ 119
1591 rbis
438 HR
314 SB with 74% success rate
8 All Star games
One MVP award. #2 in MVP voting a different year.
ROY
Four GGs in CF & four more in RF.

Compared to Perez he has a similar lifetime OPS+ , HR and rbi totals.
He had speed and great defense which Tony didn't have.


Andre Dawson Belongs in the Hall of Fame. The scrutiny players go thru to get in the Hall of Fame now is embarrassing. Give players there due. Sorry but Jim Rice was fantastic and deserves his props. Gaylord Perry made it and there are debates on other guys ? Come on be serious ! I appreciate the science of numbers truly but good god man before this we knew or percieved stars of the game and should give them there due.