Printable View
Losses do not necessarily ndicate how he pitched. Also, he only led the league once. 1988 arguably the worst year of his career.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexanBob
I'll take a dominant pitcher (yes, he was dominant, see the thread on him), whose 5th in career strikeouts, and had excellent career numbers, over a power/speed guy with a career OBP of under .330.
RoY doesnt do anything at all for me, unlike MVP, GG, and AS appearances that do a little.
in the RoY race, there's many a year where the winner is just the best of a bunch of bad options.
I think Gold Gloves are the most ridiculous awards out there. Far more often, they go to the good offensive player who doesn't do pratfalls than to a skilled defensive player.
Sabermetric study after study has rated Adam Everett the National League's best defensive shortstop. Guess how many Gold Gloves he has won? Guess how many Gold Gloves the attrocious-fielding Barry Bonds has won? Aside from Brooks Robinson, the best fielding third baseman I ever saw was Ken Caminiti. He only won 3 Gold Gloves and they happened to coincide with his best *offensive* seasons.
On another thread, I mentioned Rafael Palmeiro winning the GG at 1B in 1999 despite playing only 28 games at first and 135 at DH.
ROY means you were among the league's best players at least for one season. In some years, the competition is stiffer than others and many a good rookie had a weak career either due to injuries or failure to adjust their game. Gold Gloves are 90% garbage as far as I'm concerned. I'd take ROY as a greater credential than GG anyday.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexanBob
It's really a tragedy of epic proportions.Quote:
Sabermetric study after study has rated Adam Everett the National League's best defensive shortstop. Guess how many Gold Gloves he has won?
To be fair, when Bonds won his Gold Gloves (1990-1998, except 1995), he WAS a good fielder...Quote:
Guess how many Gold Gloves the attrocious-fielding Barry Bonds has won?
Retarded.Quote:
On another thread, I mentioned Rafael Palmeiro winning the GG at 1B in 1999 despite playing only 28 games at first and 135 at DH.
Wrong. It means you were among the league's best ROOKIES that season.Quote:
ROY means you were among the league's best players at least for one season.
While Gold Gloves are a bull award, I would say that they have more bearing for HOF discussion than ROY. Besides Derek Jeter, I would say that players who win Gold Gloves usually were a good fielder at least earlier in their career. For Gold Gloves, once you're established as a good fielder, you'll keep winning even if you arent a good fielder, with some exceptions like Jeter.Quote:
In some years, the competition is stiffer than others and many a good rookie had a weak career either due to injuries or failure to adjust their game. Gold Gloves are 90% garbage as far as I'm concerned. I'd take ROY as a greater credential than GG anyday.
GG are 90% garbage to me too, hence my "...unlike MVP, GG, and AS appearances that do a little" qualifier ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by TexanBob
90% garbage is still better than 97%, which i would say RoY awards are.
If Andre Dawson had been born 25 years earlier, he'd probably be in the HOF. The fact that we now have a much better understanding of park effects hurts his chances a lot.
Other than Wrigley, what hitter's parks did he play in? Olympic Stadium, where he spent the bulk of his career, was in no way a hitter's park.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexanBob
Fenway. :D
Seriously, while you are correct that Stade Olympic wasn't a hitter's park, Dawson was already in the decline phase of his career when he left there. Wrigley masked his decline to a great extent.
Still, even if he had played his entire career in pitcher's parks, he'd be, as the thread title puts it, a "Famer on the Fringe". My point was that if we didn't have the understanding of park effects that we've gained in the past quarter century or so, he'd likely be more-or-less a lock. He still has a decent shot at getting in eventually, and that's OK with me. But it's also OK with me if he doesn't get in--there are better-qualified position players who are eligible but not in yet, and they should go in before him.
Well, I find it hard to believe that the sports writers even look at park effects. :p
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexanBob
Not to mention what the Big Toilet Bowl did to Hawks knees... god i hate that Stadium.
It's ridiculous that the whole argument against Dawson comes down to his OBP, the one chink in his armour. Get over it, walks are fine and all, but I'll take a guy who makes contact over a guy who sits back to get a few walks AND strikeout a billion times (Sammy Sosa?). OBP is a fine stat, but hardly a deal breaker. It's not "The Hall of Statisitcal Excellance", it's the "Hall of Fame"...
While we're at it throw Tommy John, Jim Kaat and Bert Blylevyn in their as well.
Such as?Quote:
Originally Posted by dps
I'll take a guy who strikes out a lot, gets on base a lot, and hits for power, over a guy who's only abilities are decent power and speed. A strikeout is usually just as bad as any other kind of out. An out is bad. Getting on base is good.Quote:
Originally Posted by dolfanar
I'm all for John, Kaat, and Blyelvyn, Bert without a doubt.
So you'd induct 3 slightly above average pitchers over an exceptional and at times dominat outfielder?
Wow... inconsistency though name art HGM...
Let's just give out the MVP to the guy with the highest OBP each year :rolleyes:
Bert Blyleven wasn't just slightly above average. Refer to his thread and all the links to the baseball analyst articles.
Dawson had one year that could potentially be called "dominant" - his MVP season, and even then, I personally think there were better candidates that year, they just didn't reach 49 home runs. Even then, if you look at it, his 1987 was actually worse compared to the rest of the league than like his 1983.
I'm not saying OBP is the only stat to use to judge a hitter, but a guy who hits .270/.400/.500 with 30 homers and 0 steals is more valuable than the guy who hits .279/.323/.482 with 30 homers and 20 steals...
The entire point of battings is to score runs. How do you score runs? My getting on base. Outs are the "currency" of baseball. The best hitters, more often than not, are the hitters who get out the least. Obviously a guy who walks with no more, say a .280/.420/.340 (weird line i know), is probably not as valuable as the guy that may go .280/.350/.530...
for his era, Dawson consistently dominant. I have read the thread, and all I see are contradictory arguments depending on who YOU personally like or dislike (All Star games are worthless... oh no wait there not for THIS player. Strikeouts are worthless... but not for THAt guy). There is such a thing as a "good" out, and there is a reason that for years managers liked contact hitters, who didn't strikeout, but didn't necessarily walk a hundred times either. Why? Because in pre-Juiced ball era baseball, pitchers actually PITCHED to hitters/ that's why you didn't see as many 80+_ walk a year guy's. Jeez, forget about 80 walks... the record is over 200 now! Differant eras. I'm guessing you weren't old enough to actually watch 80's baseball, where things like hit and run, speed, base stealing, defense and little ball actually brought strategy to the table. In that environment Dawson WAS a dominant player.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Your passion is great, but you can't expect to brow beat the whole board into agreeing with you by sheer force of volume of posts. That's another thing I see in this thread.
IMO, you VASTLY overate OBP. IYO I VASTLY underate OBP. That's life.