Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

The playoffs are, in great part, a **** shoot. I really believe that in a short series, the best team doesn't win all the time. Maybe not even 70 percent of the time. Luck plays a part.
However, I certainly understand your point about OPS+. I think quite a few people take a certain statistic (like OBP or whatever) and laud it as the be-all, end-all of judging a baseball player. They then miss the point of Moneyball & the Billy Beane school of thought--it's not that OBP or any other statistic is the ultimate--it's the theory of finding hidden value that other people aren't looking for, and some statistics can allow you to do that. That being said, I'm not even going to begin getting involved in the OPS+ devate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edburns

The joke of it that baseball is much deeper than statistics.

---

Okay? So that means stats are useless?

Quote:

---

The reason the Billy Beane model worked and still works is finding value. I have been reading Bill James since about 1983. I understand that stats side of things, however, to blindly keep saying OPS+ OPS+ is the joke.

---

I'm not blindly saying it. It's just one quick way to compare players.

Quote:

---

Yes it is useful, but it does not account for strategy at all.

---

Strategy is a lot less important than skill.

Quote:

---

Take a look at someone like Vince Coleman...or the entire 1985 Cardinals team. Not too impressive on paper, yet they won the NL Pennant. They had 300+ steals and were built for a style of baseball that matched the era and their ball park.

---

They also Jack Clark and Willie McGee posting OPS+'s around 150. Three or four good OBP guys. No power hitter, but nobody ever said a power hitter is needed. When you steal 110 bases at an 80% clip like Coleman did that year, yes there's a lot of value in that. Those steals are part of the reason Coleman had an above-average .269 EQA that year, despite a subpar 85 OPS+. EQA is a stat that takes into account many different stats, including stolen bases. .269 isn't amazing, but it's decent.

Also, I'd also argue that the Cardinals were so good, not because of their hitting, but because of their pitching. Joaquin Andujar, John Tudor, and Danny Cox all had very good years, specifically Tudor. Combine that with a strong bullpen, and you don't need a very powerful lineup.

Quote:

---

The point is that OPS+ or any statistic captures some data, but not all.

---

I know.

Quote:

---

How does OPS+ or any stat for that matter capture the pressure a pitcher feels with Vince Coleman on 1B getting ready to steal? What does that pressure do to the pitch selection?

---

It doesn't. Stop acting like I said OPS+ is the be all and end all of a stat. The only thing OPS+ measures is on-base and slugging...No stat can capture every single thing on the baseball field, but if you look at the multitude of stats that are available, you can get a very good judge of a player's value and ability. You're placing way too much emphasis on minor things that in the large scope of things are way less important than actual ability.

Quote:

---

Go back and read what you have written. OPS+ over and over and yet you miss the entire point.

---

I think you missed me entire point. I was quickly and roughly using OPS+ to judge offensive dominance. It is in no way the be all and end all of statistics, but it's a quick way to judge a player's offensive dominance over the rest of his league.

Quote:

---

Now look again at 1985...how did KCR win the WS? OPS+ for the team of 95 and STL had a team OPS+ of 108. How does that happen? Oh the playoffs are random? No, not at all it is just that statistics can not measure everything

---

Obviously they can't measure everything. And yes, the playoffs ARE basically random. Once you're in the playoffs, it's a toss up. Also, the Royals had an even stronger pitching staff than the Cards that year.


All in all, you're placing way way way too much value on things like team chemistry and the minor strategies that take place every once in a while. Over a 162 game season, talent and ability are far more important.

Jack Clark was an intimidating dude. He could hit shots that were still climbing while they were going over the wall. That's what made The Ripper a power hitter. The 22 homers he hit weren't bad in the mid eighties either. 30-35 were a great season

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robinhoodnik

Jack Clark was an intimidating dude. He could hit shots that were still climbing while they were going over the wall. That's what made The Ripper a power hitter. The 22 homers he hit weren't bad in the mid eighties either. 30-35 were a great season

---

Yeah I know. He was a terrific player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edburns

The best way to judge a Hall of Famer is this... was he the one or two best players at his position over a 10+ year period.

---

Old Hoss Radbourn
Sandy Koufax
Rube Waddell
Jack Chesbro
Juan Marichal
Mordecai Brown
John Clarkson
Bruce Sutter
Lefty Gomez
Addie Joss
Tim Keefe
Bob Lemon
Joe McGinnity
Amos Rusie
Bobby Wallace
Mickey Welch
Vic Willis

none of these guys were the one or two best at their position over a 10+ year period ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edburns

Ask anyone who actually saw Dawson play in the 1980s and they will tell you that he was.

---

are we really back to the "you have to see him play to be a good judge!" thing? if so....

i saw him in person many times in the '80s (not everyone around here is a youngster ;) ). he wasnt one of the 1 or 2 best over a 10+ year period. not even close.

The whole thing about thinking that Houston is putting too much into OPS+ is incorrect as well. I brought up the discussion about the merits, and the problems, with OPS+. The reason that it's mentioned so often in this thread is because of that, and because it was used to answer a specific question. I don't see that HGM thinks it's the "answer to all questions" or anything like that.

It's NOT the answer to all questions. :)

It's one quick and dirty way to compare two players from any time in history using the two largest facets of offense - getting on base, and hitting for power. There are better ways, but it's the most easily accessable and also very easy to understand. 100 is average, how ever much above or below 100 is how much above or below average that player was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by disposablehero

i saw him in person many times in the '80s (not everyone around here is a youngster ;) ). he wasnt one of the 1 or 2 best over a 10+ year period. not even close.

---

He was always on TWIB, Sports Machine, Wide World Of Sports' highlight reels, He was well known even in cities without N.L. franchises or games available on the local channels. He was a great player and he was also always banged up, especially his knees. When he got to Boston near the end of his career, you could almost feel the pain you knew he was in when he played the field.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by disposablehero

i saw him in person many times in the '80s (not everyone around here is a youngster ;) ). he wasnt one of the 1 or 2 best over a 10+ year period. not even close.

---

Dawson wasn't even the best player on his own teams. When he was with Montreal, the best player on the team was Gary Carter; with Chicago, the best player on the team was Ryne Sandberg. That doesn't mean that Dawson shouldn't be in the Hall, of course.

I am not trying to speak for edburns, but I think he is referring to position players when he says, "The best way to judge a Hall of Famer is this... was he the one or two best players at his position over a 10+ year period."

This , if interpreted literally, would reduce the HOF down to 20 players at best, I would think. Quite a strict standard. Nobody entirely agrees with anyone else on the HOF. Some want a stricter standard, and less players. Some want a special group of the best of the best, an "Inner Circle", or something like that. Others just want to induct every "good" player in history. The fact remains, no one is right, and no one is wrong.

Perhaps edburns meant that a player should have been in the top 1-2 players at some point, during a 10 year period of good play. That would make sense, if you want a more liberal standard. However, I dont think thats especially fair. What if, in a particular era, there were no truly great third basemen? We induct the 1-2 guys who were the best? Maybe 20 years later, there are 5-6 third basemen who were outstanding. We pick the best 2 and leave the others out?

I dont think that "picking the best of his era" things works that well. In 1950, there were only 7 active pitchers who eventually made the HOF, but in 1970, there were 14. Assuming that all 21 were qualified ( a stretch, I know), shouldnt we have inducted more from the 1950 era and/or less from the 1970 era?

Just a thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dps

Dawson wasn't even the best player on his own teams. When he was with Montreal, the best player on the team was Gary Carter; with Chicago, the best player on the team was Ryne Sandberg. That doesn't mean that Dawson shouldn't be in the Hall, of course.

---

Gehrig/Ruth, Fisk/Yastrzemski, Mathews/Aaron, Clemens/Boggs, Berra/Howard,.................

interesting

Don't bump up year-old threads like this for no reason.

actualy just for fun i searched all threads that have the word poop in it and this one came up :p i found that amusing

Fetish of yours?