Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

Hodges was pretty good with the leather too. In all but two seasons he was as good or usually better than the league average defensively. One of the sub par seasons was his next to last, when he got into 47 games at first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dolfanar

MAybe they need to open up a "Hall of Almost Fame"? You could set up in the parking lot of Coopestown!

---

hehe
They could set up some sort of display about it. Honorable mentions are a good thing.
;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dolfanar

MAybe they need to open up a "Hall of Almost Fame"? You could set up in the parking lot of Coopestown!

---

......and have Rice, and Dawson, and Raines in to sign cocktail napkins! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexanBob

I think quite a few HOF voters stop at 3-4/yr. Having Gwynn and Ripken on the ballot gave them two automatics. So I would not be surprised to see several borderline Hall candidates do better next year.

As for McGriff, I've said he is a bellweather on other first basemen. I don't know how you induct Jeff Bagwell (who many claim will get in) and leave out McGriff. Sure, Bagwell had some better overall skills but he's almost 50 career homers and 150 hits behind McGriff during virtually the exact same time period. This will also be a factor with Frank Thomas unless Thomas reaches 500 homers.

Baines is another interesting case because he may be setting the bar for modern-day hitters who don't get in despite over 2,850 hits (Pete Rose notwithstanding). His being a DH for much of his career seems to be working against him. That doesn't bode well for Edgar Martinez or other hitters who DH much of their careers.

---

I don't have an issue with McGriff going in, just that there other players who, IMO, are way ahead of him. The differance with Bagwell ofcourse is the LONG strecth of playing in Houston. That's alot of votes right there. Not saying it's RIGHT, but there you are.

As for Baines, with his numbers if he doesn't go in, then NO player who plays any significant amount of time at DH will ever get in. He was consistently a complete package at the plate. Martinez OTOH would be borderline even if he wasn't a DH, IMO, as a DH there is no way he should be going in.

Ofcourse the thing we ar emissing is how perception will change over the next few years. As fewer and fewer elligible players will have those LONG single team careers, guy's like mcGriff may become more attractive. By the same token, some of the pitchers we consider considerably below par now (David Cone for instance) may just begin to look alot better. I call it the Polished Turd Principle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robinhoodnik

......and have Rice, and Dawson, and Raines in to sign cocktail napkins! ;)

---

Grrr...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

I don't see how comparing the OPS+ values of two players from different years and/or leagues actually means that much. It can show that player's difference from the rest of his league at the time, but that doesn't mean that the guy's season in the 1970 AL with a 150 OPS+ is better or worse than another guy's season in the 2001 NL with a 140 OPS+. It's an apples and oranges comparison.

---

Well, the 150 OPS+ in 1970 would be better when compared tio the rest of the player's league than a 140 OPS+ compared to the rest of the league in 2001. Like my Wagner/Pujols example, Pujols had a BETTER season, but when compared to the league, it was the same..

The only way to meaningfully compare OPS+ values for players seasons in differing leagues or years is to adjust the 100 OPS+ value for both (or all) of the players involved. Using your example of Pujols 2005 vs. Yastremski 1970:

Yas 1970: lgOPS .747| 178 OPS+
Pujols 2005: lgOPS .773| 167 OPS+
If you take those values, you can cross multiply and divide them to find the OPS+ of one player in relation to the other... I think.

If you move Yas into Pujol's 2005 world: (.773*178/.747) you get yas's new OPS+ of 184, which is now based on the .773 leage average, vs. the .747 league average of 1970.

I'm not sure I did that right, but I think it is... It illustrates the point well though, that you've gotta be real careful comparing OPS+ values. What's better or worse between seasons and leagues varies, and it's not always obvious which value is better or worse just by looking at them. It's the same thing as asking which value is greater: 3/5ths or 7/12ths.

Here's some more numbers

Stan Musial 2.803
Ted Williams 2.593
Tony Gwynn 2.622
Babe Ruth 1.666
Barry Bonds 1.299
Cal Ripken 1.298
Rod Carew 0.987

Jim Rice 1.019
Dwight Evans 0.815
Fred Lynn 0.995

This is RBI per K's. Basically every out they made at the plate vs. runs driven in.
If they're striking out, they're usually not driving in runs and thus hurting the team.

The ultimate in useless power, Dave Kingman. 0.666 rbi per strikeout.

Bobby Bonds' 0.582 is kinda depressing too.

Dawson comes out pretty good though...

1.054 Better than Rice :)

heh, that's an interesting metric.
:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

The only way to meaningfully compare OPS+ values for players seasons in differing leagues or years is to adjust the 100 OPS+ value for both (or all) of the players involved. Using your example of Pujols 2005 vs. Yastremski 1970:

Yas 1970: lgOPS .747| 178 OPS+
Pujols 2005: lgOPS .773| 167 OPS+
If you take those values, you can cross multiply and divide them to find the OPS+ of one player in relation to the other... I think.

If you move Yas into Pujol's 2005 world: (.773*178/.747) you get yas's new OPS+ of 184, which is now based on the .773 leage average, vs. the .747 league average of 1970.

I'm not sure I did that right, but I think it is... It illustrates the point well though, that you've gotta be real careful comparing OPS+ values. What's better or worse between seasons and leagues varies, and it's not always obvious which value is better or worse just by looking at them. It's the same thing as asking which value is greater: 3/5ths or 7/12ths.

---

Well, I don't feel like thinking enough to figure out if you did that right or not, but it's besides the point. OPS+ by itself is a simple, quick, decent way to compare two players based on how they fared relative to their league and park. It's by no means definitive, but there IS no definitive stat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I really wish we could've seen what Bagwell's 1994 would've been without a strike.

---

It would have been the same without a strike. Bagwell's hand was broken by a pitch just days before the strike began.

Some even argue that the strike saved his MVP. If Matt Williams had continued on his home run tear or somebody came up big during the September stretch run, an inactive Bagwell might not have won the award.

Admittedly, Bagwell was having one otherworldly season up to that point. He crushed the franchise records for home runs in a season (previously 37), RBIs in a season (previously 108) and batting average (previously .333), all by the first week of AUGUST!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexanBob

It would have been the same without a strike. Bagwell's hand was broken by a pitch just days before the strike began.

---

Ah didn't know that.

Thanks!