Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof07/...ory?id=2703632

I wanna break down what they said about the FOR for Dawson.

I'm gonna change the order of this first one. "You'd want Andre Dawson" was originally the last sentence.

Quote:

---

What do you want in a ballplayer? You'd want Andre Dawson.

---

Let's see why.

Quote:

---

You'd want a consistently tough out

---

A career OBP of .323 indicates that Dawson was not, in fact, a tough out. He actually was a lot easier to get out than the average player!

Quote:

---

someone who could hit for power, run, cover ground in the field and make strong, accurate throws.

---

Okay. Fair enough.

Quote:

---

You'd want high character, leadership ability

---

Well, I don't know the guy or anything, so I guess I'll give this one to them.

Quote:

---

and a willingness to play hurt. .

---

First off, keep in mind that I know nothing of Dawson's injury history so take of this what you will. He played in over 150 games 6 times in 21 seasons. He was most often in the 130-140 range. He wasn't a player who was always out, but it doesn't seem like he played hurt a lot...

Quote:

---

Dawson had 16 straight years with 45 extra-base hits, a run worthy of guys like Henry Aaron, Stan Musial, Willie Mays, Mel Ott and Honus Wagner.

---

Henry Aaron would consistently get 60-85 extra base hits. Stan Musial would consistently get like 60-90 extra base hits. Same for Mays. Ott was similar, less than Aaron/Musial/Mays but significantly more than Dawson. Wagner a lot was higher than Dawson, and he barely hit home runs!

Let's take a closer look at CAREER extra base hits AND I'll also show the players CAREER high in extra base hits if you take the player's best doubles season, best triples season, and best home run season

Career Extra base hits
Dawson: 1039
Aaron: 1477
Musial: 1377
Mays: 1323
Ott: 1071
Wagner: 993

Career HIGH Extra Base Hits
Dawson: 102
Aaron: 107
Musial: 112
Mays: 115 :eek:
Ott: 89
Wagner: 77

Exclude Dawson's fluky 49 home run season, and he's below all of them except the home-run-weak Wagner.

Indeed, Dawson is not worthy of comparison to any of those highly superior players.

Quote:

---

His 2,774 career hits are the most of any eligible player not in the Hall.

---

There's always going to be one player with the most career hits of any eligible player not in the hall. That's not a reason to vote anyone in, or else, EVERY player would eventually get in.

Quote:

---

Dave Winfield, a first-ballot Hall of Famer, had 3,000 hits and a World Series ring but never finished in the top two for MVP honors. Dawson won an MVP and finished second twice. It's time to remember just how great of a player he was.

---

Terry Pendleton had an MVP, and finished in second once. VOTE PENDLETON HALL OF FAME.

Winfield had more career extra base hits than Dawson, a higher batting average, a higher on-base percentage, more home runs, more hits, more Silver Sluggers, more All Star appearences, more World Series rings, a higher OPS+, a higher OPS, and just one less Gold Glove. And while Winfield never finished in the top two for the MVP, he did finish in the top 10 7 times, and the top 12 9 times. Dawson had four top 10 placements, and 6 top 15.


:rolleyeS:

Shoot, by that standard Dale Murphy should be in...back-to-back MVPs!

But he's a CUB! DUH!!!!:cool:

First of all, Phil Rogers is a Chicago sportswriter and generally more sourced than bright. I thought his argument was weak until I read the counterargument:

(paraphrasing) "Dawson doesn't get my vote because he's, um, well, um, he was great. He just wasn't elite. He wouldn't get my vote if I had a vote but I'm not a baseball writer so I don't get a vote."

Houston GM should offer to write for ESPN. At least he can form a better argument than the guy they picked.

As I think I would do in making a better argument than Buster Olney about why Blyleven's not worthy. Blyleven's credentials boil down to two things - he stayed good for a long time and he struck out a lot of batters. He had one of the best curveballs in the game.

Tim Kurkjian, speaking in favor of Blyleven, rivals Rogers in bad statistical comparisons. He claims Blyleven has pitched more shutouts than Tom Glavine, Pedro Martinez and Curt Schilling combined. Way to compare a guy whose peak was in the 1970s to three guys in the closer-happy, pitch-count-happy 1990s and 2000s when complete games have become virtually extinct. That's like arguing Jose Canseco hit twice as many career homers as Honus Wagner and Ty Cobb combined. Different eras, guys.

But let's see some stats Kurkjian conveniently ignores.

In 22 seasons, Blyleven won 20 games only once. He never led the league in wins or ERA. He led the league in strikeouts only once (1985) and never won a Cy Young award. He did, however, lead the league in losses (1988), earned runs allowed (1988) and home runs allowed (1986 & 1987). His career 3.31 ERA is great by 2000 standards. It's merely above average for the times in which he played.

His career W-L record is 287-250 (a pedestrian .534 winning percentage). Kurkjian would have you believe this is due to playing on bad teams but Blyleven's teams won their division six times. And that was back during two-division baseball when it was a lot harder to make the postseason than it is today. I'm sure he played for some stinkers too but so did Dawson and most other players up for the Hall. In Dawson's MVP season, his Cubs finished LAST.

Like Alex Rodriguez or Andruw Jones, Blyleven first came up to the majors while in his teens. He pitched well until he was almost 40. His high career win and strikeout totals were due to being above average for two decades, not for being extraordinary in any one of them.

He's the essence of the Hall of the Very Good.

Nice line/post - I agree with what you say almost entirely but there is a slight Q which lingers then if Blyleven DOESNT get in cos he was CAREER wise very good but not in extra-ordinary season to season play then does RICE get in cos he WAS DOMINANT during his peak years of his career ??

There's a continuum at work. Guys who are very good but not extraordinary can get in by reaching certain career milestones (3,000 hits, 500 HRs, 300 wins, etc.). That's the Don Sutton Rule. Paul Molitor was another guy I never considered "great" but he reached 3,000 hits so he got in easily. I'm guessing if he'd finished with 2,800 hits, he'd still be waiting.

For dominant players (MVPs, Cy Youngs), your dominance is measured against your longevity. If your decline was gradual, the voters typically let you in. If your decline was swift (see Dwight Gooden or Dale Murphy), the voters are less forgiving. Then there are the sympathy cases like Kirby Puckett who got in, in part, because their outstanding career was cut short before they began to decline.

On the question of Rice, I'm ambivalent. I wouldn't be upset if he got in. I wouldn't be upset if he didn't. He's truly a borderline call. Unless you are passionate about the guy, you're probably not moved either way.

I got into an argument on an Astros fansite in 2003 about the Hall of Fame chances of Jeff Bagwell and Criag Biggio. I went so far as to e-mail the beat writers of all 30 teams to get their reaction.

About half responded (mostly NL guys). On Bagwell, they were complimentary but lukewarm. On Biggio, less than half said he had a chance. One replied "you're dreaming" about Biggio making the Hall.

Now, there are few that think Biggio won't go in. What has happened since then? Has Biggio's game improved sharply from 2003 to 2006? No, if anything, it has dropped off some. What's happened is that Biggio is approaching 3,000 hits (he needs 70 next season) and that has changed him from "very good but not great" to "certain Hall of Famer".

It's not fair to pitchers like Blyleven who didn't reach the target but it seems to be how the system works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexanBob

Then there are the sympathy cases like Kirby Puckett who got in, in part, because their outstanding career was cut short before they began to decline.

---

Kirby Puckett got in because he deserved it. 10 AS games, 6 GGs, 6 SSs, 7 times in the top 10 in MVP voting, 5 times in the top 5 in batting average, 10 times in the top 10 in hits while leading the league 4 times. And don't forget his 2 WS rings.

Granted his career was short because of medical issues but there's no doubt he was elite.

He was also viewed as one of baseballs "good guys"

I'm not saying Puckett lacked credentials but he is a case of somebody we didn't get to see decline. He's obviously not in the top of career lists for hits, homers, runs, RBIs, etc because he was robbed of his latter years so you had to extrapolate what would have been and then say "he was good enough during his prime that he likely would have been among them."

Had Dale Murphy died in a plane crash around 1988 with his two MVPs etc before his career took a nosedive, would his HOF chances have been better?

Before anyone goes there, no, I'm not trying to equivalate Puckett and Murphy. I'm just reaching for an example of somebody who was a dominant player who we got to watch decline and then ruled he wasn't Hall-worthy because his decline was too swift.

Oh, and Murphy was also viewed as one of baseball's "good guys".

Just two observations here....and I'm not saying Steve has done it...

1) But Puckett gets credit for the number of AS games and top 10 finishes in the MVP voting, but then someone like Blyleven who only has two AS games and only two 3rd place Cy Young showings along with a fourth and seventh..has that put down to popularity contests....

2) Blyleven's low win totals are put down to the crummy teams he was on and yet other guys like Dawson could have had better stats RBIs and Runs if they were on better teams too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nuzzy62

1) But Puckett gets credit for the number of AS games and top 10 finishes in the MVP voting, but then someone like Blyleven who only has two AS games and only two 3rd place Cy Young showings along with a fourth and seventh..has that put down to popularity contests....

---

I give Puckett credit for everything he accomplished, from the popularity contents to the actual statistics. However, you have to take things into context. If you swap Blyleven's August/September stats with April/May, you know he'd have more All Star appearances. All Star Games measure half-year performances, not full year performanec.

Quote:

---

2) Blyleven's low win totals are put down to the crummy teams he was on and yet other guys like Dawson could have had better stats RBIs and Runs if they were on better teams too.

---

Dawson's stats that aren't team-related aren't Hall worthy. I think it's foolish to judge any player by his team-oriented stats - wins, RBIs, losses, runs, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Dawson's stats that aren't team-related aren't Hall worthy. I think it's foolish to judge any player by his team-oriented stats - wins, RBIs, losses, runs, etc.

---

Dawsons stats that aren't "team-related" as far as totals would be better if the team was better because of more AB's. I know it's not a lot but 100 runs can mean a reasonable number of additional plate appearances. It also changes what type of situatuations he is in when he is hitting. I'm not saying it will be a lot but it can mean something.

The point remains that Blyleven didn't have any truely GREAT years. Sure he had two AS game appearances, but he only finished in the Cy Young four times.
And one could easily argue that Blylven wasn't one of the five best pitchers in the majors in any given year considering the number of Cy Young votes he got.
There isn't any year you could succesfully argue that he was the best pitcher in baseball.
Which all begs the point that others have made, in that Blyleven was above average and piled up the stats through longevity.

As far as Dawson and other batters are concerned, RBIs do count. They certainly helped Tony Perez' cause, but he was fortunate to have all those other great players around him like Bench, Rose and Morgan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nuzzy62

As far as Dawson and other batters are concerned, RBIs do count. They certainly helped Tony Perez' cause, but he was fortunate to have all those other great players around him like Bench, Rose and Morgan.

---

They do count in the eye's of the voters, I know, but I think that's foolish.

Hey, we agree! Did **** freeze over?

being well above average for 20+ years IS special. i think i can count the number of guys who have done it on 1 hand.

for some more fodder to think about.....5-1, 2.47 ERA, 47.1 IP, 6.85 k/9, 1.52 bb/9 - what is this? Bert's postseason line


to the guy who pointed out Bert's pedestrian .534 win%...

15% of the SP in the HoF have similar win%

Robin Roberts - .539
Eppa Rixey - .515
Gaylord Perry - .542
Phil Niekro - .537
Rube Marquard - .532
Ted Lyons - .531
Pud Galvin - .540
Nolan Ryan - .526

If you can only come up with five guys who were above average for 20 years you're not looking hard enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nuzzy62

If you can only come up with five guys who were well above average for 20 years you're not looking hard enough.

---

im speaking specifically of SP and you forgot a key word

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by disposablehero

for some more fodder to think about.....5-1, 2.47 ERA, 47.1 IP, 6.85 k/9, 1.52 bb/9 - what is this? Bert's postseason line

---

Nice. So, I suppose you also support Jack Morris for the Hall (4-2 2.96 ERA, 3 CG, 1 shutout in WS competition, including clutch Game 7 in 1991)?

Quote:

---

to the guy who pointed out Bert's pedestrian .534 win%...

15% of the SP in the HoF have similar win%

Robin Roberts - .539
Eppa Rixey - .515
Gaylord Perry - .542
Phil Niekro - .537
Rube Marquard - .532
Ted Lyons - .531
Pud Galvin - .540
Nolan Ryan - .526

---

First, let's toss out the pre-WWII guys - Rixey, Marquard, Lyons and Galvin. Different eras. In fact, I have no clue why Rixey and Lyons are in at all other than longevity.

Of the remaining ones:

Nolan Ryan isn't in because of his winning pct. It's for his 300 wins, 5,000 Ks and 7 no-nos. Blyleven can't match him in any of those categories. More than one GM in Ryan's career chided him for being a glorified .500 pitcher.

Gaylord Perry tops 300 wins with two Cy Young Awards and three times led his league in wins. Blyleven can't match him in any of those categories. Personally, I would have never voted for him because he cheated much of his career.

Phil Niekro tops 300 wins and if he hadn't he probably wouldn't go in. Other than longevity, he has little else to commend him.

Robin Roberts did not win 300. He did, however, lead his league in wins four times. There was no Cy Young Award during the peak of his career but he almost surely would have won in 1952 when he won similar "pitcher or the year" honors and finished second in MVP voting. He was in the top 7 of MVP (not Cy) voting four straight years and could easily be argued the dominant pitcher of the early 1950s.

Probably the best argument for Blyleven is that the only eligible pitchers with more wins who haven't joined the Hall are Bobby Mathews (pre-1900) and Tommy John. But if you want to argue that way, you should champion the causes of Tommy John and Jim Kaat as well. All three had basically the same career.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexanBob

Nolan Ryan isn't in because of his winning pct. It's for his 300 wins, 5,000 Ks and 7 no-nos. Blyleven can't match him in any of those categories. More than one GM in Ryan's career chided him for being a glorified .500 pitcher.

---

Blyleven was 13 wins away from 300 and 37 away from Ryan, but started 88 LESS games than Ryan. Ryan was a much better strike out pitcher, but the dude walked boatloads of people, which Blyleven did not. No-No's, while definitely a great feat, aren't that impressive when you walk 5-10 batters a game. =\

Quote:

---

Probably the best argument for Blyleven is that the only eligible pitchers with more wins who haven't joined the Hall are Bobby Mathews (pre-1900) and Tommy John. But if you want to argue that way, you should champion the causes of Tommy John and Jim Kaat as well. All three had basically the same career.

---

I do believe that both Tommy John and Jim Kaat should be in the Hall, as well as Blyleven.

You're making a huge mistake though. You're judging pitchers ENTIRELY on the worst stat there is to judge them by - wins, oh, and their awards which we all know aren't the best judges of a player (see: Justin Morneau, AL MVP). Blyleven was arguably a much better all around pitcher than Ryan, despite winning less games.

If you look at stats that can actually judge a pitcher's ability - K/9, BB/9, K/BB, HR/9, WHIP, **** even ERA to a better extent than Wins, Blyleven is a very good pitcher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

You're making a huge mistake though. You're judging pitchers ENTIRELY on the worst stat there is to judge them by - wins, oh, and their awards which we all know aren't the best judges of a player (see: Justin Morneau, AL MVP).

---

But wins, ERA and awards ARE how pitchers are judged for the Hall of Fame. I know you don't like that, but that's the way it is. Same as every non-pitcher (except Ozzie Smith) are judged on hits, homers, batting averages and awards.

And we're saying that those stats shouldn't be the sole stats that a player is judged by.

the 'per 9' stats are not that great either. 'per PA' is a much better way. For example, K/9 only tells you how many of a player's outs were Ks, whereas K/PA tells you what % of the batters he faced were Ks.

K/anything is better than wins. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexanBob

Nice. So, I suppose you also support Jack Morris for the Hall (4-2 2.96 ERA, 3 CG, 1 shutout in WS competition, including clutch Game 7 in 1991)?

---

i dont mention them as his sole claim to the HoF. im mearly adding more things to his resume. if you had been around here for any significant length of time, you'd know thats not my MO ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexanBob

First, let's toss out the pre-WWII guys - Rixey, Marquard, Lyons and Galvin. Different eras. In fact, I have no clue why Rixey and Lyons are in at all other than longevity.

Of the remaining ones:

Nolan Ryan isn't in because of his winning pct. It's for his 300 wins, 5,000 Ks and 7 no-nos. Blyleven can't match him in any of those categories. More than one GM in Ryan's career chided him for being a glorified .500 pitcher.

Gaylord Perry tops 300 wins with two Cy Young Awards and three times led his league in wins. Blyleven can't match him in any of those categories. Personally, I would have never voted for him because he cheated much of his career.

Phil Niekro tops 300 wins and if he hadn't he probably wouldn't go in. Other than longevity, he has little else to commend him.

Robin Roberts did not win 300. He did, however, lead his league in wins four times. There was no Cy Young Award during the peak of his career but he almost surely would have won in 1952 when he won similar "pitcher or the year" honors and finished second in MVP voting. He was in the top 7 of MVP (not Cy) voting four straight years and could easily be argued the dominant pitcher of the early 1950s.

Probably the best argument for Blyleven is that the only eligible pitchers with more wins who haven't joined the Hall are Bobby Mathews (pre-1900) and Tommy John. But if you want to argue that way, you should champion the causes of Tommy John and Jim Kaat as well. All three had basically the same career.

---

ahh, i see. win% only means something for Bert. got it. thanks :)

I know these are skewed by the various eras of baseball...

But Blyleven is not in the top 100 pitchers in WHIP, Hits per 9, Walks per 9...

He is 99th all time in K9, but it's probably a safe bet in this era of free swingers he'll be out of the top 100 within the next decade.

We can argue all we want aboout his secondary numbers, but his best case scenario for making the Hall is based on his career totals. Fifth all-time in strikeouts is pretty special...He's 26th all time in wins with the only guys above him who aren't in (and haven't yet had a chance to be voted in) are Tommy John and Bobby Matthews.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

K/anything is better than wins. :p

---

But why? Yes, I know wins is not a reliable stat (although I'd argue it means more for starting pitchers than for relievers) but Ks are vastly overrated.

I'll take a guy who can get 27 straight ground outs any day.

Ks have a lot of value in scouting but that's because they are hunting for prospects who they can project to the next level. Personally, I think that's overblown too.

There's no stat for pitch movement which is the key to getting outs, making people swing where the ball isn't.

Steve Carlton won 27 games and a Cy Young for a last place team. The truly dominant pitchers will still dominate even on bad clubs. The pitcher, more than anyone on the field, controls his own destiny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexanBob

I'll take a guy who can get 27 straight ground outs any day

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexanBob

The pitcher, more than anyone on the field, controls his own destiny.

---

a pitcher that can K 27 straight batters controls his destiny far more than a pitcher that cant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexanBob

But why? Yes, I know wins is not a reliable stat (although I'd argue it means more for starting pitchers than for relievers)

---

Wins are vastly more meaningful for starters than relievers, but they're still a junk stat. What if a guy happens to get lucky and has and gives up 10 runs each game he pitches, but his team gives him an average run support of 12, so he ends up with a 18-10 record. Is he a good pitcher? No.

Quote:

---

but Ks are vastly overrated.

---

Wins are vastly overrated. :)

Quote:

---

I'll take a guy who can get 27 straight ground outs any day.

---

Over a guy who can get 27 straight strikeouts? A strikeout gives no room for fielder error. Once the balls in play, it's up to the fielders, not the pitcher.

Quote:

---

Ks have a lot of value in scouting but that's because they are hunting for prospects who they can project to the next level. Personally, I think that's overblown too.

There's no stat for pitch movement which is the key to getting outs, making people swing where the ball isn't.

---

Well, I think you're confusing the strikeout with the radar gun. Making a batter swing where the ball isn't is the exact definition of a strike out...

Quote:

---

I do believe that both Tommy John and Jim Kaat should be in the Hall, as well as Blyleven.

---

Blyleven maybe depends you can make a case either way. But Kaat & John. C'mon that's a big stretch. LOL. **** if you let them in players like Jack Morris, Charlie Hough, Doyle Alexander should be shoe-ins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brewersfan

Blyleven maybe depends you can make a case either way. But Kaat & John. C'mon that's a big stretch. LOL. **** if you let them in players like Jack Morris, Charlie Hough, Doyle Alexander should be shoe-ins.

---

Well after studing the stats. John maybe you could make a case. But I still don't think so. Kaat, I'm sorry he belongs nowhere near the HOF. He was nothing more than mediocre through his career.

Like he said, Blyleven, John, and Kaat were all very similar pitchers. Blyleven is obviously the better of the three, but they all had very similar careers. Kaat also has those gold gloves on his resume, something that surely helped Brooks Robinson.

A case can be made for Jack Morris, I don't care much either way.

Charlie Hough? he had 216 wins, 216 losses. He was basically the definiton of a league average pticher. He had a pretty good five year stretch, but overall he was nothing speical.

Doyle Alexander is another league-average guy. He didn't even reach that coveted 200 win mark in his career, and while he could post a great year here and there, he could also post a fairly eh year

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brewersfan

Well after studing the stats. John maybe you could make a case. But I still don't think so. Kaat, I'm sorry he belongs nowhere near the HOF. He was nothing more than mediocre through his career.

---

John was basically the same as Kaat...except Kaat had tons of Gold Gloves.

Brooks Robinson had a very mediocre career, but got in the Hall on the strength of his Gold Gloves. His career OPS+ was 104, ffairly average.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

A strikeout gives no room for fielder error.

---

Wrong. Somebody still has to catch it, or have you never heard of a "passed ball"? Oh, that's right. Those only count for catcher stats.:p

lol

Ok first you make these quotes:

Quote:

---

You're judging pitchers ENTIRELY on the worst stat there is to judge them by - wins, oh, and their awards which we all know aren't the best judges of a player

---

Quote:

---

Wins are vastly more meaningful for starters than relievers, but they're still a junk stat. What if a guy happens to get lucky and has and gives up 10 runs each game he pitches, but his team gives him an average run support of 12, so he ends up with a 18-10 record. Is he a good pitcher? No.

---

Then when I bring up these players you say this:

Quote:

---

Charlie Hough? he had 216 wins, 216 losses. He was basically the definiton of a league average pticher. He had a pretty good five year stretch, but overall he was nothing speical.

Doyle Alexander is another league-average guy. He didn't even reach that coveted 200 win mark in his career, and while he could post a great year here and there, he could also post a fairly eh year

---

Quote:

---

Kaat had tons of Gold Gloves.

---

So basically if it suits your argument you dismiss wins and awards as meaningless stats. But here you use them as meaningful stats to prove your argument against me!! So basically it all depends on the argument whether that stat is meaningful or not for you. Thats what I call a hypocrite!

i just want to make it clear that im not saying Bert was the best pitcher of all time. he's far from it.

im just saying it is impressive for a starting pitcher to be well above average for 20+ years.

I'd say he was above average for most of 20 years, well is a bit subjective. He was well above average for at least four years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexanBob

Wrong. Somebody still has to catch it, or have you never heard of a "passed ball"? Oh, that's right. Those only count for catcher stats.:p

---

You're not serious are you? :-\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brewersfan

So basically if it suits your argument you dismiss wins and awards as meaningless stats. But here you use them as meaningful stats to prove your argument against me!! So basically it all depends on the argument whether that stat is meaningful or not for you. Thats what I call a hypocrite!

---

They have meaning for the Hall of Fame. A pitcher has to be extremely good to be Hall worthy without high win totals, like Sandy Koufax. And while I only quoted wins, I could also quote the ptichers basically league average ERA's and other stats. The players you mentioned are not in league with Blyleven, John, and Kaat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nuzzy62

I'd say he was above average for most of 20 years, well is a bit subjective. He was well above average for at least four years.

---

Roger Clemens was above average for most of 20+ years too. so...

Blyleven = Clemens :D

no really....a 22-year career with ERA+ of ~118 equals well above average (17 above 100, 10 above 125, 5 above 140, and 2 above 150). thats better than every starting pitcher in the HoF from his era, except seaver (127), and only a handful of SP have 20+ year careers in that territory since WWII.