Hall Of Fame: Andre Dawson Elected
by Randy Booth on Jan 6, 2010 2:07 PM EST
in News
Email
PrintOnly one former baseball player will be inducted into Cooperstown this year and that is Andre Dawson.
Dawson earned 77.9 percent of the vote to creep across the 75 percent marker. Bert Blyleven (74.2 percent) and Roberto Alomar (73.7) fell just short of being elected.
53 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
lame
totally lame. continues the lame trend of weird cult valuation that has dominated baseball for decades.
So stupid
Raines was a better better in virtually every way. I don’t get it.
Building Fenway from the ground up - Virtual Fenway
yeah
Dawson was like the 7th best player on the ballot. I love (Chad Finn): “Like Jim Rice, this guy swung the bat and wasn’t concerned about OBP.” So…he was not concerned with making outs-that’s sissy stuff!
Even that's debatable
I can think of more than seven guys on the ballot I’d vote for before Dawson. He’s the kind of player who lowers the bar for future inductees.
What a joke!
Blyleven, Raines, Larkin, and Alomar all deserved it more.
Can someone explain how Andre Dawson, a player who only had 3 seasons with a .350+ OBP and a career line of .279 AVG/.323 OBP/.482 SLG (.806 OPS/119 OPS+), is in the HOF and Dwight Evans, who hit .272 AVG/.370 OBP/.470 SLG (.840 OPS/127 OPS+) over his career, isn’t? Evans played a damn good RF too.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
because
being 19% better than your peers is better than being 27% better in the eyes of the voters. Oh, and he was “more feared.”
Nah
It was the nickname: The Hawk. Andre “The Hawk” Dawson just sounds like a HOFer!
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 6, 2010 2:50 PM EST up reply actions
The vote:
Andre Dawson (420) 77.9%
Less than 75% of vote, but still on ballot.
Bert Blyleven (400) 74.2%
Roberto Alomar (397) 73.7%
Jack Morris (282) 52.3%
Barry Larkin (278) 51.6%
Lee Smith (255) 47.3%
Edgar Martinez (195) 36.2%
Tim Raines (164) 30.4%
Mark McGwire (128) 23.7%
Alan Trammell (121) 22.4%
Fred McGriff (116) 21.5%
Don Mattingly (87) 16.1%
Dave Parker (82) 15.2%
Dale Murphy (63) 11.7%
Harold Baines (33) 6.1%
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
Oh...you boys and your stats.
I watched him all the time when he was with the Expos and loved him, so I’m glad he’s in. Anyone know if he’s going in as a ’Spo?
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
I have a five-tool player in my pants.
Agreed
It’s obvious these boys and girls are driven only by STATS and are too young to realize what a career The Hawk had in those days. And whoever said it, Yes Raines, deserves to be in the HoF. He should have been in a long time ago. How can the 2nd best leader off hitter (only 2nd to Henderson) not be in the hall of fame?
I loved him
as a kid before I grew up and realized that a guy who has a career OBP of .323 does not belong in any shrine that purports to honor baseball excellence. That is just a player who was not so offensively useful to the teams he played for. Raines was way better, Alomar was way better, Trammell was better. Larkin was way better…and these are just the position players not associated with steroids that were on this year’s list.
Good for him.
Sure, about a half dozen guys deserved it more, including Blyleven, Alomar, Trammel, Larkin, and Raines. But I always liked Dawson.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
wouldn't it piss you off
if you were any of these guys?
Probably not
“It was well worth the wait. I can’t really describe the elation,” Dawson said during a telephone conference call. “If you’re a Hall of Famer, eventually you’re going to get in, no matter how long it takes.”
Blyleven and Alomar are in next year. I’m not sure how many years the rest of these guys have been on the ballot, but I’d wager if they deserve to get in, they have time to get there.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
I have a five-tool player in my pants.
there are a bunch of other guys
both on this year’s ballot and not even on the ballot that are clearly better baseball players (as defined by how much value they brought to their teams vis-a-vis wins) that will never make it. And this would really piss me off I was one of them. Nothing against Dawson, but it would get me mad that the entire baseball community has been brainwashed to believe things that are demonstrably untrue, and that said player(s) have to suffer for this while less deserving (in the manner described above) continually get in because sportswriters and the media (and thus the fans eventually) buy into completely random means of ascribing value to players. I am sure back in 1921 sportswriters said things like “who needs home runs? It is a meaningless stat. Ty Cobb didn’t need ’em.”
Relax
The Hall of FAME =/= Hall of Being Demonstrably the Best. If it was purely statistical, then we could abolish the voting system and just admit the high scorers, right? But “fame” is subjective, much like “valuable.”
If you think about it too much, it’ll drive you nuts.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
im just saying
it would piss me off. Just because the name has the word “fame” in it does not mean that that is what it is about; it has always been about the best players (who are thus in principle the most famous) it is just that people don’t undertand what “best” in baseball means. And when your OBP (the single simplest and most important non-aggregate stat) is 0.323, you basically suck, so it is not shades of grey here. It is not subjective-you make more outs than the average player. And that should get you into the hall of fame?
Yup.
The difference is that Dawson was always very popular and well-liked. Alomar was not.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
Yup.
Fame is subjective.
But Hawk isn’t exactly chopped liver. 400 HRs, 300 SBs, top ten in OPS six times despite his craptacular OBP, within ten points of career OPS of Alomar despite playing in a dramatically less offensive era (see here, here, here, and here), generally regarded as an excellent fielder, etc.
Don’t get me wrong, Alomar was the better player. But I’m glad for Dawson.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
Dawson has by far the worst OBP of anyone in the Hall
In other words, he is by far the worst hitter ever elected to the HOF. Dawson made outs at a higher rate than any HOF player. Here’s an example of how bad a .323 career OBP is: Julio Lugo’s career OPS .336, meaning he has hit safely at a higher rate than “The Hawk.”
Dawson’s OPS was weighted by SLG. Look at a hitter like Dave Kingman. No one would ever say he was HOF-worthy. His .302 career OBP is pretty ugly. Yet, by virtue of a .478 career SLG (he hit 442 HR), his career OPS is .780. That’s far off Dawson’s career OPS of .806.
Again, if a scrubby hitter like Dawson gets in, why is Dwight Evans not even mentioned as a HOF hopeful? Evans was a better player. Both players have 8 Gold Gloves (a rather subjective award). Evans led the AL in OPS twice. Dawson never led the league in OPS. Evans led the AL in walks three times. Etc., etc., etc.
I know Dawson won an MVP. But Tim Raines should have won it that year. Raines was a much better player than Dawson.
When players like Andre Dawson get in it cheapens the HOF. The problem is many of the sportswriters who have a vote come from the CHB school. By that, I mean they know nothing about the game and have axes to grind.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 6, 2010 11:45 PM EST up reply actions
Check again.
Bill Mazeroski is at .303. But he was a great fielder and hit a famous home run, so he’s he’s in.
And don’t forget Brooks Robinson at .322. Another great fielder, played on some great teams and hit a few dingers.
I’m not saying Dawson was the best selection this year – as I said above, Alomar, Blyleven, Larkin, Trammel, and Raines were all more deserving. But the Hall is plenty cheap without the Dawson types. It’s marketing, plain and simple.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
Brooks also had a truly memorable playoff performance.
That carries weight in voter’s minds.
Robinson also initially played 3B before it was expected to have as much offense as today. He was one of the 3Bs that transitioned it to a position where you expect HR power from – Schmidt obviously carried that the rest of the way, of course.
His OBP & SLG also suffered from playing for such a long career – well past his prime. He needed the money though.
Same is true for Dawson
that the tail of his career killed his career OBP. Couple that with his famous knee injuries, and you’ve got quite a sob story.
But I’m not saying Brooks doesn’t deserve to be in. Of course he does: he’s BROOKS ROBINSON. At the time he played, he was regarded to be among the best players of his era, won an MVP, played in a bunch of AS games, won a bunch of GGs, a couple WS rings, etc. Take away the rings, and the same goes for Dawson.
Of course, to our Moneyball-enlightened eyes, both Brooks and Dawson are “awful” hitters. But that’s not how they were viewed during their careers, or why players are elected.
I think of the Hall of Fame much like I do the Walk of Fame in Hollywood. They’re both about building the mythology of the relative industries. Put in the big names, the celebrities, gloss over the bad stuff, sell a bunch of collectibles, and count the dough.
Someday I’ll take my kids to the HOF, and tell them about Andre Dawson and how I saw him play when he was washed up at the end of his career. Unless, of course, the VORPie Revolution hits and they purge anyone deemed to lack the requisite “Fame” to be enshrined.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
No it didn't
Dawson only had 3 years with an OBP of .350 or better. Dawson’s OBP’s in the last four years of his career are in-line with those earlier in his career. As I said before, Dewey Evans was better than Dawson—and no one talks about him as a potential HOFer.
There are many players who are questionable choices for the Hall, like Dawson. What I can’t understand is how someone like Dick Allen is still waiting to get in (yes I know the writers didn’t like him). He hit .292 AVG/.378 OBP/.534 SLG (.912 OPS/156 OPS+). Allen also had 6 years of 30+ HR, most in an era of depressed hitting stats. He won Rookie of the Year and one MVP. Yet, when Allen was eligible, he never got more than 18.9% of the BBWAA vote.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 7, 2010 7:18 AM EST up reply actions
Same for Brooks Robinson.
Three years at .350 or better.
I agree about Dick Allen. He should be in, and he probably will be someday.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
Robinson's stats are probably more in line with other IF of his era
You can find many OF from Dawson’s era that had much better stats. If Dawson is HOF-worthy, what about these guys?
Dave Parker – .290 AVG/.339 OBP/.471 SLG (.810 OPS/121 OPS+) 1978 NL MVP 3 GG [Top vote: 24.5% in 1998]
Dale Murphy – .265 AVG/.346 OBP/.469 SLG (.815 OPS/121+) 1982 and 1983 NL MVP 5 GG [Top vote: 23.2% in 2000]
Dwight Evans – .272 AVG/.370 OBP/.470 SLG (.840 OPS/127 OPS+) 8 GG [Top vote: 10.4% 1998; no longer eligible because his vote total dropped]
Rick Monday – .264 AVG/.361 OPS/.443 SLG (.804 OPS/125 OPS+) [Top vote: 0.5% 1990]
Bobby Murcer – .277 AVG/.357 OBP/.445 SLG (.802 OPS/124 OPS+) 1 GG [Highest vote: 0.7% 1989]
Ken Singleton – .282 AVG/.388 OBP/.436 SLG (.824 OPS/132 OPS+) [Top vote: 0% 1990]
Gary Matthews – .281 AVG/.364 OBP/.439 SLG (802 OPS/118 OPS+) 1973 NL ROY [Top vote: 0% 1993]
Tim Raines – .294 AVG/.385 OBP/.425 SLG (.810 OPS/123 OPS+) [Top vote: 30.4% 2010]
I’m sure I could find more. The point is, all of these guys were Dawson’s contemporaries and were as good or better. Yet they all got low vote totals. I’m not saying these players should be voted in (except for Raines). I’m saying Dawson shouldn’t be in the HOF. I just don’t see how a player like Dawson could get 77.9% of the vote and these guys, for the most part, were lucky to get 25%.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 7, 2010 9:55 AM EST up reply actions
Again
The HOF is not about who is statistically the best. Particularly, it is not based on stats like OBP and OPS, which were not really considered important when Dawson was playing. It’s sad but true.
Case in point – Dewey. The best hitter of the bunch that you just listed, by OPS. Maybe the best fielder. Great player, iconic swing and iconic ‘stache. But he only made 3 AS games, because he wasn’t viewed as the best. Dawson made 8, won an MVP, a ROY, etc. He was viewed – incorrectly, through our prism – as among the best in the game. Maybe because he was “five tool” in a way those other guys weren’t (i.e., 300 SBs).
Again, the HOF is not a rational place. It’s just not.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
Here’s a pretty good primer on how to make it into the HOF.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 7, 2010 7:52 PM EST up reply actions
Dewey should be in based on stache alone.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
I have a five-tool player in my pants.
Faulty logic
yes, there are players in the Hall that don’t deserved to be there, but making the argument as a justification for admitting other players that don’t deserve it is silly. It is like saying that teaching intelligent design in some schools is ok becuase, well, it has always been taught somewhere. If you want things like this to die a quick death, and rid the sport of the CHB philosophy of what makes a good ballplayer, you cannot be for admitting players who are as bad as Dawson was.
Faulty premise
I don’t think you understand what the Hall of Fame is. Seriously. The Hall of Fame has always been and will always be a monument to baseball legends. I mean, the only reason it’s in Cooperstown is because at some point people decided that’s where baseball was invented – despite much evidence to the contrary. I think they liked the name “Abner Doubleday” and went with it.
If you want the Temple for the best of the best, pick up a Baseball Abstract or go to Baseball Reference and flip through the leaders section. If you want to see old men getting misty-eyed about how the game should be played, go to Cooperstown.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on Jan 7, 2010 8:53 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I understand perfectly
but you don’t seem to. My point is that say what you want-people who support guys like Dawson do so because the really think he is among the best. They really do. They don’t say, ""well, I know he kinda sucked, but boy he had character. He had a great build, and was fun to watch." The problem is that they think they get it and the people who view baseball in a modern rational way don’t. Sure the Hall is surrounded with the old time hokum that you mention, but underneath it all it is the buliding of legend based on faulty logic. By not realizing that, you are, in a minute and minor way, enabililing the CHB-type view that is based on this faulty thinking. In baseball, I agree, it is not the most important thing, but I see this lack of rationality in every aspect of human enterprise in the world today, and it drives me crazy. So, sure, I don’t really care about Andre Dawson, but it just reminds me of the stupidity of human process on a grander scale.
Almost ALL legend is built on faulty logic.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
I have a five-tool player in my pants.
What bothers me
Is that some writers don’t believe that some players should get into the Hall because it’s the first their on the ballot. That is stupid, if you think they have HOF numbers to get in, you should vote them in, making the wait is pointless. I can understand changing your opinion about a player’s credentials and then changing your vote, but I’ve read too many times that so-and-so was a HOFer but not a first ballot HOFer.
Alomar should have been a lock
one of the best 2B ever offensively & how many gold gloves?
+1
10 GG
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 7, 2010 9:58 AM EST up reply actions
Alomar will get in
I’m sure that there were some people that just didn’t think he was "first ballot " worthy. Which, I’ll say again, is stupid.
If the guy has to wait one year because he spit in an ump's face and disrespected his son?
I’m okay with that.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
I have a five-tool player in my pants.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Livan Hernandez welcomes ballboy to the bigs with shower of sunflower seeds (VIDEO)
- Man beaten by four others in Dodger Stadium parking lot
- Lance Berkman’s knee injury creates a lot of questions for Cards but also his career
- Next generation: Scott Van Slyke, son of Andy Van Slyke, hits first career homer
- The Juice: Stephen Strasburg homers to cool off Orioles, Aroldis Chapman closes out Yanks
