Dawson to the Moon
Posted: February 24th, 2009 | Filed under: Baseball | 73 Comments »
So, here’s the deal: I have been tangling with this massive semi-steroid blog post that will never get done, and working four other jobs, and dealing with family issues, and I absolutely have to get final rewrite of 09/09/09 done. And, to be honest, I’m drowning.
The smart thing, of course, would be to stop writing this blog temporarily. But, if I was that smart I never would have started writing this blog in the first place, right?
So … I am certain I will still blog over the next few weeks. But until I can get everything under control, there will be no more long blog posts. That’s it. Nothing more than 650 words, which, of course, is an utterly pointless number I just pulled right out of thin air. But I’m sticking to it. That’s it. Short blog posts until further notice.
And yes, these 151 words count.
I have been reading Adam Gopnik’s fascinating new book Angels and Ages, which, oddly, is about Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin. Both. The starting point is that Lincoln and Darwin were born on the same day — Feb. 12, 1809 — interesting enough, though I did not know what kind of book that would make. As it turns out, I think it’s a terrific book, which makes me wonder about a Frank Thomas and Jeff Bagwell book; they were born on the same day (May 27, 1968).*
*I’ll just assume that would be a terrific book too … if Adam Gopnik wrote it.
I’m don’t have time to review the book, but I want to point out a passage. There are numerous passages that made me stop, but this one made me think about our big Baseball Hall of Fame question: How should you judge baseball players for the Hall of Fame? Should you judge them against the standards of their time? Or should the players, by necessity, tower over their times?
In many ways, Andre Dawson fits the question best (though you could argue that McGwire and the Steroid Five fit too). When Dawson played, you heard that he could “do it all.” He played great defense, stole bases, hit homers, drove in runs, he even hit .300 four times. These weren’t just standards — that was everything in his time.
Now we see that Dawson had a career .323 on-base percentage. We now know — in a way that was not especially straightforward in Dawson’s time — that all those outs the Hawk made greatly diminished his value as a baseball player. What to do? Many suggest that voters should judge him by his time. Dawson wasn’t paid to get on base (this is unquestionably true). He did what was asked of him, and he did those things at an extremely high level and with dignity and class, and for that he deserves to be in the Hall.
Other say that you can’t put in a guy with a .323 OBP no matter that he did many other great things.
Tough call. I don’t know that this Gopnik passage about Darwin provides answers about Dawson … but it made me think.
We should not judge the past by the standards of the present. … But we should not judge the past by the standards of the past either — if we did that, we’d smile politely as some of our ancestors burned books, and nod understandingly as others burned witches (and some of us would be nodding as both our ancestors and their books got burned). We should judge the past by the standards of the best voices that were heard within it.
Does Dawson’s .323 OBP stand up to the “best voices” of his time? I don’t know how many words left, but I don’t need many: The simple answer, sadly, is no.
Loading ...
Damn it! Stop sending me to the book store, I can’t afford it.
I feel the same way about Joe Carter. Career .306 OBP.
Joe – I’ve read just about every word you’ve published since you joined the KC Star: columns, blogs, SI pieces. The only times I ever skip your work are the times you write about steroids. I am beyond tired of the subject. It bores me to tears. Please stop.
I’m on the fence about Dawson because he did do many other things really well and it would seem absurd to pick one stat out of many to keep him from induction. I know its the most important stat but still I don’t think defense and home runs should be undervalued when looking at him (especially since there are some in there who got in primarily because of defense, like Brooks Robinson who had a .322 OBP).
Personally I probably wouldn’t vote for him but I also don’t think the Halls standards would be lowered should he get in.
@#4 Jeff P.: Not to assume you don’t know this, but corner outfielders are not the most valuable defensive players; aside from first base, in fact, those are the easiest positions to play and good-hit, no-field guys are often stashed there if first base is already manned. (See: Ramirez, Manny; Dunn, Adam.) Guys like Brooks Robinson, Ozzie Smith and Bill Mazeroski – all of whom are in the Hall primarily for defense – played harder and more valuable defensive positions. The Hawk may have been an excellent right fielder… but he was a right fielder.
It wouldn’t be the biggest travesty ever if he got in (I mean, Jim Rice just did and he’s little better), but I can’t convince myself he belongs.
Windier – I understand that and he was a great defensive outfielder but I’m not implying that thats why he should get in – I just think it should be taken into account along with the home runs, rbi’s, stolen bases, etc. Thats kind of what I meant about undervaluing his D. I do see both sides of the argument with Dawson and wouldn’t have a problem either way.
The problem isn’t that corner outfielders aren’t important fielders. He played center for a good while too (and was pretty good at it), and if he were a tremendously gifted corner outfielder, like Rickey or Kaline or Clemente, then sure, big point in his favor. But there’s nothing at all to suggest that Dawson was anywhere near Mr. [Brooks] Robinson’s neighborhood. Dawson was a pretty good center fielder and an average-to-below-average right fielder; Robinson was probably the best defensive third baseman of all time. Having an OBP equal to Robinson’s doesn’t really do anything for Dawson.
Ever since Bowie Kuhn was let in, I can’t think of a good reason to keep anyone out.
Watching Brooks Robinson play 3rd base was like watching Picasso paint.
Dawson was a centerfielder for his first 7 years and won 4 Gold Gloves. Deservedly. He was that good.
How does that make him a corner outfielder?
He moved to right because his knees were shot, not because he lost the ability to field his position.
It is possible to have a tragic consciousness without robbing it of a hopeful view… or something like that.
In the larger picture, I think he deserves it.
OBP is really the only stat that is visited when discussing keeping him out. EVERYTHING ELSE strikes one as being HOF-worthy. The outs made are a problem, sure. I just don’t think that in the big picture not drawing walks is enough to keep him out when everything else screams Hall of Famer. There are plenty of guys who are in with worse strikes against them than an abysmal OBP. Jeter will get in with ease, and his defense is worse than Andre Dawson’s OBP.
Again I wasn’t saying that he should be because of his defense, I just don’t think it should be ignored because he was an outfielder.
@Ron: That last sentence makes no sense. “He moved to right field because his knees were shot, not because he lost the ability to field his position.”
?!
No, he moved to right field because he HAD lost the ability to field his position BECAUSE his knees were shot.
Agree with Joe, overall, there were plenty of people at the time pointing out that Dawson made too many outs, Bill James being the most obvious.
@Old Man Duggan: “OBP is really the only stat that is visited when discussing keeping him out. EVERYTHING ELSE strikes one as being HOF-worthy. The outs made are a problem, sure. I just don’t think that in the big picture not drawing walks is enough to keep him out when everything else screams Hall of Famer.”
Well, first, no, his avg. wasn’t that great either. .279 isn’t horrible, but that’s not a HoF avg., either. Second, the outs made are a problem, yes indeed. He was comfortably below average at the single most important aspect of the game, that seems like an important part of the big picture to me.
And, no, everything else about him doesn’t scream Hall of Famer. His .279 avg. doesn’t scream it.The fact that he only scored 100 runs in a season twice doesn’t scream it. In fact, I’d say that nothing about him screams HoFer. He didn’t make it to 3,000 hits or 500 HRs. His career OPS+ is only 119. He only won one MVP and he didn’t really deserve that one. Can you make a HoF case for a guy with 438 HRs and 2700+ hits, sure, but let’s not get carried away.
Ron #10 –
“He moved to right because his knees were shot, not because he lost the ability to field his position.”
Huh?
It’s ludicrus to think that one stat, OBP, would keep someone out of the HOF. A player deserves to be in the HOF based on his entire body of work. True HOF players are obvious, based on their stature among their peers during their playing career. If you have to quibble and argue over Andre Dawson’s OBP to try and decide if he deserves to be in the HOF, it’s obvious he’s not a HOF player.
Don’t stop reading about steroids.
You try to be throughful about it. You don’t rant. You admit confusion and ignorance.
And you try to find your way to conclusions, rather than just throwing up your hands.
That’s make your voice a valuable one on this topic.
Old Man Duggan…Jeter’s defense is worse than Dawson’s OBP. But OBP is more important than defense, and Jeter is one of the 5 or 6 best offensive shortstops of all time. Jeter is a no-brainer HOFer. And also, there are not mnay guys in the HOF who were voted in by the writers and have a worse strike against them than Dawson’s OBP.
The notion that we should forgive Dawson’s OBP because in the 1980s people didn’t emphasize OBP…well, great hitters throughout history have had great OBPs even though the stat was not appreciated in their time. Putting up a great OBP is an essential part of being a great hitter, and always has been, even if the stat itself was not fully appreciated. Mantle and Mays didn’t put up lousy OBPs just because nobody understood OBP in the 50s and 60s.
Ron, Dawson played more than half of his career games in RF, less than half in CF. And moving to RF because his knees were shot IS moving because he “lost the ability to field his position.” He lost the ability to cover the ground required of a CFer.
This is the same thing they said about Rice: Oh, he didn’t know he was supposed to be focusing on x, y, z aspects of the game because no one knew how important they were.
BALLS!
Here are some random OBP of various HOF outfielders who were “not paid to get on base” and played before Bill James pointed out how stupidly everyone was thinking about the game (unlike Rice and Dawson who had access to the abstracts had they cared to learn a thing or two about the game they played):
Duke Snider- 380, Willie Mays- 384, Stan Musiel- 417, Ted Williams- 482 (!), Jimmie Foxx- 428, Mickey Mantle- 421.
Talent can be judged by any standard you want from any age you want and it will stand out.
I came to say what Rob said, except I disagree with his conclusion. Dawson’s .279 career BA is acceptable for a guy with 438 HR, especially with the speed and other pluses. So you’re going to keep him out because he didn’t walk enough? That one aspect keeps him out? What if Manny were as bad at defense as his biggest critics think? Would you keep him out for that? Hell, Brooks Robinson is in because he did one thing very well. To keep Dawson out because he did one thing poorly shows how radically HOF voting has changed.
Joe, have you ever read Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States”? He also talks about judging history by the best voices of the time (or something along those lines… the book’s on the shelf somewhere but I can’t put my hands on it), and quotes some amazing people from history who identified things like the slaughter, enslavement, and torture of Native Americans for the atrocities they were.
AlbaNate nailed it:
“Ever since Bowie Kuhn was let in, I can’t think of a good reason to keep anyone out.”
End of discussion.
Is Nancy Pelosi wearing a snuggie at the “state of the union”?
I plan to steal that Bowie Kuhn line.
Nice connection, Melody (#21). “A People’s History of the United States” should be mandatory reading in High School. After I was subjected to “Willa Cather month” in my junior year English class, Howard Zinn would’ve been light reading.
For those not interested in biting off the whole of US history, Zinn’s “You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train” mainly covers the 60’s and 70’s; it is outstanding, also.
Mike’s arguments for Dawson’s HOF credenitals leave me underwhelmed. A .279 BA and 438 HRs don’t really measure up to HOF standards. In addition, Dawson was not considered a HOF player when he played. Why should he be considered a HOF player now?
You know, the more I think about it, I think Dawson should get in. Here’s why and yes, it’s this simple–
1. When I was an 9 year old in 1983, Dawson was a super valuable baseball card to trade with others in the neighborhood. He was a somebody of somebody’s.
2. What was Luis Aparicio’s batting average? He didn’t have to be among the elite at every aspect of his game to be a HOFer, so why should Dawson? It’s not like we’re trying to sneak Harold Baines into The Hall. (that’s not a knock on Baines, I always liked him as a player)
3. If you were to put together a team based on players who played at least 10 seasons from 1977 – 1992, who would be on your 27 man roster? If Dawson’s there then he should be in The Hall. If he’s not on your roster, then there must’ve been at least 5-6 better outfielders than him and probably one of them isn’t a HOFer. I think he’d be on mine.
“If you were to put together a team based on players who played at least 10 seasons from 1977 – 1992, who would be on your 27 man roster?”
Is that really a good question? 27 players per 15 years would be 162 players in 90 years. The BBWAA has inducted only 122 so far, and that does include players from the 1800s.
Which isn’t to say that that’s the wrong rate, but rather to point out that you’ve already lost the agreement of the small and medium hall communities.
But just quickly scanning the list
Tony Gwynn
Rickey Henderson
Reggie Jackson
Jim Rice
Dave Winfield
In that list, the only one you can make a case for him beating is Rice. And we’ve pushed Yount’s 1150 games in center field back to the infield to avoid confusion. We would still need to deal with Evans, Parker, Raines, and Murphy.
All of these guys, in a time interval selected specifically to match Dawson’s peak.
Off the top of my head: Henderson, Gwynn, Raines, Yount, Dwight Evans, Dale Murphy, Rice… after thinking a while and looking at baseball reference: Winfield, Reggie Jackson,maybe Jose Cruz, Dave Parker is arguably as good, same for Kirby Puckett, Jack Clark was clearly better for those brief periods he was healthy
Any Hall of Fame big enough for Jim Rice is big enough for The Hawk. Dawson played a very valuable role on those Cubs and Expos teams while still being more than a “role player.” Ernie Banks, Mr. Cub himself only got on base at a .330 clip and no one questions his HoF merits because he crossed the somewhat dubious threshold of 500 HRs. Without the treacherous turf of Olympic Stadium turning his knees to porridge early in his career, Dawson would have easily it 500 HRs b/c he would have been able to play more regularly late in his career. He probably would have also broken the 3,000 hit threshold as well.
I know what-might-have-been-if-only arguments are considered weak with regard to Hall of Fame election, but are they any weaker than the he-was-really-good-for-a-few-years that just got Jim Rice in?
It’s not like we’re talking about Dave Kingman, here. Dawson was a complete player for many years and had THE BEST offensive year of the 1980s. Ask any NL pitcher who they did not want to face in their era, and I guarantee you Dawson is in the top five in any guy’s list. What more does one need?
MKD–to put Dawson up to the standards of Mays, Musial (with an “A”, not an “E”), Foxx, Williams, and Mantle is simply not fair. Is Tony Gwynn the complete hitter that Ted Williams was? NO. He’s in the hall. Was Reggie Jackson the complete player that Willie Mays was? No. Was Gaylord Perry the pitcher that Tom Seaver was? No. But that doesn’t mean any of those guy weren’t elite, HoF caliber ball players. The bar isn’t Ruth or Musial: they are the super-elite. When there’s room for Mazeroski or The Wizard of Oz, there’s room for Dawson.
Also, Dave Winfield hit a few more home runs, had a slightly better average, and admittedly a significantly better OBP, but stole almost 100 fewer bags (a stat that is not counted for much these days, but was HUGE in the 80s). Does Winfield not belong in the Hall b/c of his lack of speed? Who argues against Winfield’s enshrinement in Cooperstown.
If stolen bases were viewed as important or considered as impressive now as they were when Dawson played, there would be a lot less debate. Additionally, Dawson suffers from playing on some really mediocre teams…but one can’t blame him for that.
Monkeyhawk #9: For the record, when and where did you watch Picasso paint?
“Ever since Bowie Kuhn was let in, I can’t think of a good reason to keep anyone out.â€
Santo Alcala won his first 8 games in the major leagues, let’s put him in.
Actually, I wonder what happened to him, he was untouchable for 3 months then disappeared into oblivion. The Latin Mark Fidrych, but he didn’t talk to the ball.
Devon Young,
The problem with comparing Dawson to Aparicio is that you’re not really comparing apples to apples. Aparicio’s argument is that he was one of the great defensive shortstops of his era — among the greatest eras for defense at shortstop in baseball history — and he was also of value as a hitter.
That’s not Dawson’s argument — Dawson’s argument is, as others have pointed out, much more Dave Winfield’s argument — he was so good at so many different things for so long that he belongs. Except Winfield was better (slightly in some things, significantly in others, including longevity/durability — Dawson had just over 10,000 career PAs while Winfield had over 12,000) in nearly every area. (I’m not even conviced Dawson was all that faster than Winfield — Dawson had 98 career triples while Winfield had 88, and Winfield stole 20 bases a year when he played in the NL, but was asked to steal much less after he went to the Yankees. Even taking that into consideration, Dawson was a career 314-109 in steals, while Winfield was a career 223-96, a difference that seems a lot less significant than ‘nearly 100 bags fewer’ given that neither was Rickey Henderson or Vince Coleman.)
Comparing Dawson to Aparicio is thematically similar to comparing Dawson to Jackie Robinson, just different in degree — the two men aren’t going into the Hall for similar reasons, so they don’t make an especially valid comparison for arguments’ sake.
Even in the primitive times of the 80’s I think players realized they were not supposed to make outs. Dawson made them at a pace that was not very hall of fame-like.
Leaving the Dawson argument aside, it seems rather ridiculous to me when people who read this blog for free (which is everyone who reads this blog) tell you what to do with it. I would understand it, slightly, if they were paying for it. But they’re not. So… stop telling him what to write. Let him right Oscars, steroids, whatever. It’s his blog.
And it’s a helluva good one.
But OBP was not unknown in Dawson’s time. Branch Rickey wrote articles about it when with the Dodgers, (based on the work of the statistician he hired, Roth?). And before that Ruth showed that the best way to hit was to wait for the pitch you liked and to uppercut it. Teddy wrote well known books on just those ideas. (With Williams and Yaz it’s telling that the same argument we see here was made for Rice. Telling that is of the ignorance of the baseball media.) I think that this is really about lazy media trying to defend their lack of analytical ability, lazyness, and general ignorance.
Let me make an analogy far from baseball. Saying we should ignore OBP back then is like saying that a physicist in the 1920’s or 30’s was a good physicist even if he didn’t believe in relativity, because it was not seen to be important.
Most reporters are not experts at any sort of analysis. They are train to, “get the story,” and to write about it in a certain way.
Joe Poz is the exception.
Dawson should be judged by the total of what he did to help,(or hinder), his teams winning. His below average OBP hurt, whether that was recognized at the time or not is, I think, irrelevant.
gogiggs,
400/300 career HR/SB doesn’t scream Hall of Fame? With the knee issues? Would you like to provide me with a list of players who have not made the Hall with those numbers? Before injuries, how was he defensively? How many legitimate Gold Gloves did he win? Eight? Rookie of the Year? An MVP? Finished 2nd two more times? All that while playing on largely disappointing/bad teams?
No, it doesn’t. So he’s 144th on the all-time stolen base list? With basically a break even %, over a 21 year career. Not hearing any screaming.
Yeah, he’s a lot higher on the HR list. He’s right under Dave Kingman and right above Juan Gonzalez. That is some exalted territory there. Watch out for the exploding hamstrings and live rats, Andre!
As far as a list of players who have not made the Hall with those numbers, cobbling together a set of cherry-picked stats that put a guy into some phony “club” doesn’t prove anything. However, according to my cursory look at the lists, currently, 67% of players with those numbers are NOT in the Hall of Fame.*
And can we stop with the knees thing? The HoF is about what DID happen, not about what might have happened in some alternate world where reality turned out differently. Would Dawson have had even better numbers if his knees hadn’t gone? Probably, almost certainly, but they DID GO, so it doesn’t matter.
For the record, I liked the Cubs in the ’80s. I rooted for Andre Dawson. I think he was a very good, sometimes great player. I don’t really want to be in a position of running him down. I just don’t think he’s a Hall of Famer.
* as best I can tell the guys with 400/300 are Dawson, Barry Bonds and Willie Mays, so, while a little misleading, it’s technically true that 67% of players with those numbers are not in the Hall. Also, it’s way more than technically true that Andre Dawson isn’t in the same class as Mays and Bonds. Not even close.
Even by the standards of his day, Dawson didn’t quite do it all. He did 2 out of 3: HR and RBI. But even then, people knew that a good BA was good because otherwise you made too many outs.
OK, Dawson hit .300 5 times: while he was playing, Al Oliver did it 9 times, Pedro Guerrero 8, Jim Eisenreich 6, Bip Roberts 6, Don Slaught 6, Mike Easler 5, Hal Morris 5 times.
That BA gives Dawson a starting point well below the Hall: the home runs go a long way to closing the gap, but not nearly all the way.
Dawson had a long career, but his best years were below those of Dave Parker, or Bobby Bonds, or Dale Murphy, or Cesar Cedeno, or Frank Howard: and Tim Raines’ peak was of course way above any of them. Of course, if Jim Rice is the standard, all these guys have a case…
To jjcole: Try your nearest public library. Else do what so many others do and camp out at Barnes and Noble until you’ve finished the book.
What standards should be used? The answer is extremely simple. How many seasons was he good enough for some MLB clubowner to be willing to pay the man to play? I know that “counting stats” are out of fashion nowadays, but money still talks. I personally don’t think ANY stats should be required. I’m one of those who thinks the only standard should be “impact on the game”, so Maury Wills and Bruce Sutter belong. Voters shouldn’t consider his playing career at all, but judge him only by the number of times they mentioned his name in their columns. No reseach should be either allowed nor contemplated.
Maybe the hall should be a sort of continuum. On one end, players who did everything right for their time, but maybe didn’t have HOF-worthy value (actual value). Hawk, Rice and friends could go there. On the other end could be players who, by the best analysis we have, we understand were the best of the best, but no one seemed to notice when they did it. Blyleven, Trammell and more could live there. The bulk of the hall would be in the middle: great players who were recognized now and in their own time, but they could still exist on either side of the line. Not that that would cause fewer arguments- it would probably cause more, because there would be more to argue about- but it would make the Hall a little less binary, which may be sacrilege, but to me, feels less arbitrary.
A number of posts have talked about evaluating the whole player: all his hitting stats, defense, baserunning, etc. Bill James’s win shares attempt to do that.
It’s harder to get high career totals at some positions. No full-time catcher with 268 career win shares is not in the Hall (Ted Simmons and Joe Torre, 315; Piazza, 322; I-Rod, 325). No shortstop with 325 (Ozzie) is not in (Alan Trammell, 318; Barry Larkin, 346; Jeter, 320).
No center fielder over 322 (Willie Davis) is not in (Richie Ashburn, 329, but he stopped playing at age 35 while still capable after a year with the 1962 Mets). Andre Dawson is credited with 340 win shares, 18.94 per 600 plate appearances, but he is not completely a center fielder.
Dwight Evans, 347 ws, 19.70/600 PA’s. Even more to the point, since he played on the same artificial surface, Tim Raines, 392 ws, 22.70/600 PA’s.
No corner outfielder with 348 ws (Lou Brock, 18.58) is not in, unless you count another Royal, Rusty Staub (358, 19.13). Griffey Jr., 406, 22.67 (rate slightly below Tim Raines). Manny, 388, 25.85 (but we haven’t seen his decline phase).
Even MORE to the point, Jim Rice, 282, 18.68/600 PA’s.
No eligible corner outfielder with 348 is not in . . . except for Tim Raines.
Hey JJcole, there’s this thing i’ve heard of where you can save alot of money on reading books, you don’t have to buy them or download them, you can rent them, except you don’t have to pay anything if you return them on time, or at least renew the free rental.
Its crazy how many people I hear complaining about paying for books and everyone is too lazy to goto the library.
I’m rereading Whatever Happened To The Hall of Fame? for a book club. James’ advice was, among other things, to ask who the player compares most closely to, and to utilize all worthwhile statistics; one weakness (if that is what a low OBP is) wouldn’t keep a player out. Who are Dawson’s comparables, and how many of them are in? Is Dawson the best player who is not in?
Jeff P.- after the approximately 40 (by James’ count, in 1994) absurd selections to the Hall over the years, there’s no point in worrying about a “the Hall’s standards”. The Hall itself has no standards, and never did; everything is left to the judgment of electors.
By the way, a previous HOF blog raised the point that the “character” element in the Hall’s Rule 5 was ignored in electing Cobb. James mentions that Rule 5 was not adopted until 1945, and that the first five players were selected by the league presidents and the commissioner.
Geez, Joe…another book to read?? You know I can’t afford that!! Hmmm…if only there was a place where you could not buy a book, but borrow a book. And then you could read the book and return the book…oh, and it were all free.
…I can’t for the life of me think of such a place…
“Who are Dawson’s comparables, and how many of them are in?”
1. Billy Williams (886) *
2. Tony Perez (881) *
3. Dave Parker (865)
4. Al Kaline (858) *
5. Harold Baines (856)
6. Luis Gonzalez (842)
7. Ernie Banks (834) *
8. Dwight Evans (834)
9. Dave Winfield (824) *
10. Gary Sheffield (813)
http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/dawsoan01.shtml
Looks to me like another way of spelling “borderline candidate”.
Hey fellows, lay off of jjcoles. His was a funny, quick and timely post. I’m sure he’s aware that libraries still exist…
Lighten up people!
I had to be so direct, but there are some really idiotic arguments here for Dawson’s inclusion. Inducting Dawson now would be wrong for several reasons:
1) He is not the best eligible player, or OF, not in the HOF. Not even close. Tim Raines is considerably better. As is Blyleven. As is Santon (who I realized can’t be voted in). As is Trammell. As is Larkin who is eligible next year. There are several more. Let’s vote in the players who belong ahead of Dawson before we vote in Dawson.
2) You can’t vote him in simply because there are worse or equal OFers/1Bmen in the HOF. A lot of you are making this argument. That’s silly. Are we going to vote in all the SS better than Joe Tinker or all the catchers better than Rick Ferrell?
3) One stat alone should probably not keep a player in or out, but one stat alone is not keeping Dawson out. Dawson’s BA, HR totals, runs and RBI totals are not necessarily HOF-worthy. They may be close but they certainly don’t scream HOF. If he had a .300 average, or 500 HRs, or 3000 hits, or .500 Slg%, or 500 SBs, then I’d probably vote him in despite his OBP.
4) And while we’re on OBP, it is far and away the most important measure of a player’s worth. If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand baseball. And Dawson’s OBP is poor. It’s below average. It was a constant and continual detriment to his teams.
Oh, and Melody and 3PP:
I’ve read Zinn…and hated it. I couldn’t help but think that he was talking down to me the entire time. Just looking down his long nose and telling me, “I know what you know, and what you know is wrong.”
The atrocities he talked about need to be known, but I am already aware of them. I just didn’t like my intelligence being insulted while I was trying to learn something new…
Let’s put this in terms of a philosophy question. If one player (Raines) does more to put his team in position to win than another player (Dawson), under essentially the same conditions, yet it is not recognized by the experts at the time (the media), should we honor the player who was contemporaneously more honored or the player who history shows should have been more honored?
Sorry jjcoles!! That wasn’t a dig at you…
I actually had that exact thought run thru my head two weeks ago, is all…I’m the idiot here…
(and if you read this blog with any regularity, you would already know this)
His OBP by itself isn’t going to keep him out of the HOF, but since he is marginal at best to get in, it might be enough to keep him from being pushed it. You can plead it wasn’t a stat in the 80’s, but it’s not like it was an unknown concept throughout the history of the game. Wow, get on base, what a novel concept.
I don’t think Rice should be in, and I don’t think Dawson should be in. To me, the HOF is a gut check. When you think Cobb, Ruth, Mays, Ted Williams, Rickey Henderson, Pete Rose (ahem), Tom Seaver, etc. it just screams HOF. When you think Rice, Dawson, other “borderline canidates” it’s mostly meh. It’s always they did this, but not this, this, or this. But hey, I’m a small HOF guy.
Following up on the win shares post. . . . Tim Raines and Bert Blyleven should be in yesterday. Barry Larkin should be in tomorrow.
Andre Dawson and Alan Trammell, Dwight Evans and Lou Whitaker, they’re on the border. Reasonable people will disagree. Their cases all look better than Jim Rice’s, however, if we go by numbers and not solely by the “fear” factor.
But in addition to the numbers (which is where we should start), there is entertainment value. No doubt Andre Dawson (340 win shares, 18.94/600 PA’s) was more entertaining to watch — over the course of his career — than Darrell Evans (363, 20.28).
thanks to all who suggested going to the library.
However, I am one of many that buys the book and when I know I am done with it donates the book to a library. It feels good. You all should try it.
Andre Dawson WAS considered a future HOF’er throughout his career. I remember it that way, at least.*
*No one has a great memory when it comes to their past experiences. Look up “The Challenger Study”. Our eyes and brains lie to us like A-Rod.**
**I have no excuse for such an annoying simile.
This looks like a case for The Hall of Fame Junior to step in and bridge the gap.
First: Fly to New Jersey and find a suitable property for The Junior.
2nd: Maybe 20,000+ fans could chip in $10 each for the creation and founding of The Hall of Fame Junior.
5th: You’d chair the board of directors.
6th: You can hire Bob Kendrick to actually run the place.
Seriously, let’s get on it.
If we are going to use the ‘if not for bad knees’ argument, don’t we have to hold off on the Hawk till after Tony Oliva (.304/.353/.476, 131 OPS+) is at least seriously considered?
Just want to point out that a few of the above posters have referenced the library. But that should not be an option when it comes to 09/09/09. Buy Joe’s book, at least to pay him back for his 650 words (and often more) on this blog.
EdB: Good point. I think Joe deserves lots of payback for allowing us the opportunity to read his great stuff, discuss it as well as have fun with one another. Hell, he should be making “Therapist $$$”!
“If we are going to use the ‘if not for bad knees’ argument…”
That depends on whether you are making a “he would have been awesome if he hadn’t broken down” argument, or a “the knees were the consequence of a park effect” argument.
The former doesn’t impress me too much (lots of guys get a boost from that argument), the latter is intriguing. But I’d need to see somebody put a real investment into providing evidence before I would give it serious consideration.
Bellweather Johnson (#51),
I didn’t pick up a strong supercilious vibe when I read “A People’s History of the US”. Admittedly, I was unfamiliar with some of Zinn’s non-traditional accounts of US history prior to reading him. That probably explains our difference of opinion. In my defense, if my memory serves, (it probably doesn’t) I read the book when I was 19.
I use the library (and the Barnes and Noble ruse) as much as possible. Although a bargain compared to the alternative, my library fines seem to accrue steadily. I sometimes check out more books than I have the time to read, even in 5-6 weeks. I occasionally check out one of those “in high demand” books that can only be checked out for 2 weeks. Every time, without fail, I forget to return it on time. I need a Kindle.
I’m currently reading “On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You’re Not” by Robert Burton. Definitely a book I needed to read. You recommend anything?
I agree with #’s 59/60. I just pre-ordered a copy of The Machine. It’s only $17!
I note that the title of this post is a shout out to Adam Gopnik who wrote a fine book titled “Paris To The Moon” about jim and his family living in Paris for several years on assignment for The New Yorker
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: it’s the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of Numbers. Brooks Robinson was Johnny Unitas with a cap and glove. He was 1964 MVP, he played on a World Champion team in 66 that beat Koufax, Drysdale and the Dodgers _in a sweep_, one other WS winner and three other AL pennant winners, he was a 15-time All Star. He was, simply put, a legend. He played in an era that strongly favored pitchers (Bob Gibson’s 1.12 season ERA was set in ‘68); only two starters on the ‘68 White Sox had OBPs over .300 and that team contended for the pennant.
But the focus on numbers to the exclusion of a player’s reputation (or, if you will, fame) would have you ignore all that because the player had a .322 OBP. And, presumably, that Bert Blyleven — who would walk unrecognized by 99% of baseball fans, in that era or this — is a HoFer. Nope, don’t see it.
If “legendary” doesn’t belong in front of player X’s name, player X is not a HoFer.
Speaking of being born on the same day, how about arguably the greatest hockey player and the greatest hockey goaltender being born on the same day: October 5, 1965. That would be both Mario Lemeiux and Patrick Roy.
Matt, Bobby Orr and Ken Dryden were not born on the same day.
Joe, if we attempt to judge the past by the best voices of that time, aren’t we just judging the past by present standards. How else do you decide what the best voices of the past were if we don’t apply present standards?
RL, a rejoinder. We should start with a sophisticated understanding of the numbers, and modify that understanding with argument about legend, reputation, fame, stories, and claims that cannot fully (or at all) be substantiated about who was how much feared by whom. There’s a place for subjective remembrance of a player’s entertainment value, but it ought to be second place.
The way you remember the past and Brooks Robinson will be different from the way I remember him. Having followed them contemporaneously and seen them both play, I think Ron Santo’s overall game was every bit as good as Brooks’s: they should both be Hall of Famers. To note two pieces of your evidence, Brooks’s presence on WS teams depended on his teammates, and his AL was a weaker league than Santo’s NL at the time (what happened when Frank Robby switched leagues?). Some players have the advantage of riding on high-powered publicity bandwagons, too.
The problem with needing “legendary” attached to a HofF candidate’s name is that I don’t trust someone else, or a poll, to decide who’s “legendary.” Tinker, Evers, and Chance were legendary. Stuhldreher, Miller, Crowley, and Layden were legendary. But they weren’t 3/4 of the best infield, nor were they the best backfield. They just had promoters named F. P. Adams and Grantland Rice, who should have been put in the Legends-Makers’ Hall of Fame.
Yes, acknowledge that subjective evaluation and memory should count (and can’t be eliminated from our evaluations anyway). But start with the numbers, start grounded in reality. Case in point: Dawson is credited with 340 win shares as a center fielder/corner outfielder. Compare that with 322 for Willie Davis and 347 for Dewey Evans, and you start with evidence that Andre is right at, or right above, the career-achievement line that history has established above which every eligible player (except Tim Raines) is in the Hall. Once we’ve established that, let the stories begin. (Unless you insist on pausing to look at peak numbers or rate stats.)
Paul, as I said, arguably. I actually wouldn’t make that argument, I would probably go Gretzky and Roy, with a chance of Martin Brodeur supplanting him at the top.
The first definition for “fame” is of great reknown. It is admirable, noteworthy, deserving of acclaim.
It is NOT simply being “famous.”
Of all the lame arguments about the Hall, the ones which center on being well-known or acclaimed/ignored regardless of worth are the lamest.
I love the argument that Dawson should get even greater consideration because he had bad knees. Using that logic I’d like to nominate Tony Conigliaro (on his way to being a HOFer if not for that one pitch) and Kenny Hubbs (on his way to being a HOFer if not for that flight in a snow storm) Among other old Cubs, Dick Drott and Lance Dickson are other greats in the what-might-have-been category.
[...] Joe Posnanski writes about the case for Andre Dawson and the Hall of Fame. 3. The idea that a lack of walks is the ONLY reason Dawson [...]
[...] got a two part series on Dawson and the HOF. Part I is here, and Part II is here. I liked Andre, and he’s definitely one of my favorite players, but [...]