Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

For fun I ran a query (With hated ACCESS!) to see who the top candidates for 2008 will be. All I can say is... LEAN YEAR!

Pitching
Chuck Finley
Andy Benes
Robb Nen
Todd Stottlemyre
Darryl Kile
Mike Morgan
Greg Swindell
Jose Rijo
Bobby Jones
Mark Wohlers
Dave Mlicki
Dennis Cook
Armando Reynoso
Mike Trombley
Hipolito Pichardo

Position Players
Tim Raines
Brady Anderson
Chuck Knoblauch
David Justice
Travis Fryman
Delino DeShields
Shawon Dunston
Rusty Greer
John Valentin
Randy Velarde
Luis Alicea
Dave Hollins
Darrin Fletcher
Darren Lewis
Lee Stevens
Henry Rodriguez

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

Tim Raines better get in...

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

Quote:

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Tim Raines better get in...

I agree, but not before Hawk and Rickey Henderson :)

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

Well, considering I'm against Dawson being in, I think Raines should go in first!

As for Henderson, well, Raines should go in first, because Raines should be in on the first ballot. Henderson should also be in on the first ballot, just so happens he decided to play until he was like 75.

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

Quote:

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Well, considering I'm against Dawson being in, I think Raines should go in first!

You rate Rock above Hawk? Wow... ok, I'm not even going to touch this one, as it's just going to start a long OBP argument agian.

Instead, here is the CLass of 2003 (HOF elligible in 2009)

Position Players
Rickey Henderson
Mark Grace
Jay Bell
Matt Williams
Ron Gant
Greg Vaughn
Mo Vaughn
Dean Palmer
Mike Bordick
Al Martin
Orlando Merced
Todd Hundley
Troy O'Leary
Kevin Young

Pitchers
David Cone
John Burkett
Jesse Orosco
Denny Neagle
Dan Plesac
Charles Nagy
Steve Avery
Rick Reed
Mike Williams
Joey Hamilton
Jason Bere
Dave Veres
Omar Daal
Mark Guthrie
Robert Person
Darren Holmes

David Cone is an interesting case.

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

Wow really I don't see anyone but Henderson and raines ( although I don't think he is 1st ballot selection) Who will get in. The next 2 years will be the best chance for Dawson,Rice, Blyleven, morris, Mcgwire, to get in.

Quote:

Albert Belle had a GREAT, albeit short career. Without a doubt, a doimnant player in his short time, I would vote Belle in to the Hall.... just not this year. Like Rice I think he should wait a while. It's only his 2nd year... he has time.

Sorry to say Belle has no more time as he failed to recieve enough votes to stay on the ballot..

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

Quote:

Originally Posted by TacoBoy

Wow really I don't see anyone but Henderson and raines ( although I don't think he is 1st ballot selection) Who will get in. The next 2 years will be the best chance for Dawson,Rice, Blyleven, morris, Mcgwire, to get in.

Sorry to say Belle has no more time as he failed to recieve enough votes to stay on the ballot..

Really? Ouch! It's not the end of the world. His is really a case of the candle burning bright but *very* short. What's the cutoff BTW?

Here is the voting results:

2007 Hall of Fame voting results
The complete vote
(545 ballots, 409 needed for election):

Cal Ripken 537 98.5%
Tony Gwynn 532 97.6%

Rich "Goose" Gossage 388 71.2%
Jim Rice 346 63.5%

Andre Dawson 309 56.7%
Bert Blyleven 260 47.7%

Lee Smith 217 39.8%
Jack Morris 202 37.1%

Mark McGwire 128 23.5%
Tommy John 125 22.9%

Steve Garvey 115 21.1%
Others receiving votes:
Dave Concepcion 74 (13.6%), Alan Trammell 73 (13.4%), Dave Parker 62 (11.4%), Don Mattingly 54 (9.9%), Dale Murphy 50 (9.2%), Harold Baines 29 (5.3%), Orel Hershiser 24 (4.4%), Albert Belle 19 (3.5%), Paul O'Neill 12 (2.2%), Bret Saberhagen 7 (1.3%), Jose Canseco 6 (1.1%), Tony Fernandez 4 (0.7%), Dante Bichette 3 (0.6%), Eric Davis 3 (0.6%), Bobby Bonilla 2 (0.4%), Ken Caminiti 2 (0.4%), Jay Buhner 1 (0.2%), Scott Brosius 0, Wally Joyner 0, Devon White 0, Bobby Witt 0.

Jose Canseco is just... ugh. The guy had a hall of fame career, but... hwat can you say? Harold Baines is another that shocks me. Not that he didn't get in, just that he got shelacked so hard considering the career he had.

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

You need 5% which is 28 votes. Baines just made it.

Code:

2007 Hall of Fame Voting Total ballots cast: A record 545 (including two blanks). Necessary for election: 409 votes. Minimum votes needed to remain on the ballot: 28. Votes Pct. Cal Ripken Jr. 537 98.5 Tony Gwynn 532 97.6 Rich Gossage 388 71.2 Jim Rice 346 63.5 Andre Dawson 309 56.7 Bert Blyleven 260 47.7 Lee Smith 217 39.8 Jack Morris 202 37.1 Mark McGwire 128 23.5 Tommy John 125 22.9 Steve Garvey 115 21.1 Dave Concepcion 74 13.6 Alan Trammell 73 13.4 Dave Parker 62 11.4 Don Mattingly 54 9.9 Dale Murphy 50 9.2 Harold Baines 29 5.3 Orel Hershiser 24 4.4 Albert Belle 19 3.5 Paul O'Neill 12 2.2 Bret Saberhagen 7 1.3 Jose Canseco 6 1.1 Tony Fernandez 4 0.7 Dante Bichette 3 0.6 Eric Davis 3 0.6 Bobby Bonilla 2 0.4 Ken Caminiti 2 0.4 Jay Buhner 1 0.2 Scott Brosius 0 0 Wally Joyner 0 0 Devon White 0 0 Bobby Witt 0 0

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

I think he was a case where his relationship with the media really hurt him. He also had the whole corked bat/ stolen bat incident as well...

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

Judging by the voting this year, and the elligible players next year, it looks like Gossage and Rice are pretty safe bets to make it in next year, which I'd be ok with. Dawson has a real good shot allso. Raines has an outside chance of making it on his first try, even though I doubt he will (And think he shouldn't in any case). BLylevin is a real dark horse, with Lee Smith as an outside longshot.

I *really* don't get the Lee Smith thing at all.

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

Yeah I think Gossage is the lone selection next year. And I think Henderson and maybe Rice get in 2009. I don't think Dawson will get in. Blyleven I was stunned by how much support he lost between 2006 & 2007. I think he has the next best shot of gettin in though. I can't understand Lee smith either. He was the all time saves leader. That should count for something. But Unless there's a dramatic shift in voters minds he's not gettin in. Morris, Dawson and mattingly are three players I'd like see get in. But prolly won't. Morris ERA hurts him too much and Mattingly didn't quite have the numbers due to injuries. Dawson has the best chance out of those three but he'd have to pick up alot more votes. Raines I see sqeeking in after about 5 years or so on the ballot. Mark Grace is an intersting case, I think he'll hang around for awhile maybe even the full 15 but I don't think he'll get in. I don't think Cone has much chance considering how Blyleven can't even get in with almost 100 more wins and 1,000 more strikeouts than Cone.

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

I'm hoping alot of the guy's who voted for Gwynn but didn't support Rice and Dawson will give them a shot next year. From time to time you will see 3 guy's get the nod at once. So I'm hoping we'll see Rice, Dawson and Gossage next year.

Henderson is a lock for 2009. I think Blyleven might have an outside shot of making it in by then. The thing is his numbers start to look AWFULLY good when compared to the other more modern pitchers coming up for induction. Someone is bound to notice.

2010 will be another year without an obvious first year guy, but a bunch of decent shots at induction. 2011 looks like a really strong year. Tim Raines, Mark McGwire and Lee Smith will likely make it or break it here, imo.

2010 Elligible

Pitchers
Kevin Appier
Rod Beck
Pat Hentgen
Dave Burba
Shane Reynolds
Mike Jackson
Andy Ashby
Billy Koch
Sterling Hitchcock
Curt Leskanic
Mike Fetters
Jimmy Haynes

Position Players
Fred McGriff
Roberto Alomar
Edgar Martinez
Andres Galarraga
Barry Larkin
Ellis Burks
Robin Ventura
Todd Zeile
Ray Lankford
Eric Karros
Mark McLemore
David Segui
Fernando Vina
Tom Goodwin

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

Is that the '10 or '11 list there. I'd say Larkin and Mcgriff prolly will get in and alomar has pretty good shot as well of gettin in.

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

Also good point about Blyleven. As there really is no good pitchers up for election in the next few years. Maybe the same theory will help out Smith as well.

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

Quote:

Originally Posted by TacoBoy

Is that the '10 or '11 list there. I'd say Larkin and Mcgriff prolly will get in and alomar has pretty good shot as well of gettin in.

2010

Larkin I think has the best shot of being first time in. If McGriff makes it in, and Dawson doesn't I will be PISSED OFF MAN. Dawson >>> McGriff, and I *like* Mcgriff ALOT. Agreed on Alomar. Galaragga was my favorite player back when I was a regular att the Big O, so I just hope he get's decent consideration. But man, the pitching is REALLY thin until '11.

2011

Position Players
Rafael Palmeiro
Jeff Bagwell
Sammy Sosa
Larry Walker
John Olerud
Marquis Grissom
Juan Gonzalez
Tino Martinez
B.J. Surhoff
Bret Boone
Raul Mondesi
Benito Santiago
Jose Offerman
Bobby Higginson
Carlos Baerga
Wil Cordero
Charles Johnson

Pitchers
John Franco
Kevin Brown
Al Leiter
Troy Percival
Hideo Nomo
Ugueth Urbina
Mike Hampton
Kirk Rueter
Wilson Alvarez
Ismael Valdez
Frank Castillo
Cal Eldred
James Baldwin
Ricky Bottalico
Brian Anderson
Paul Quantrill
Terry Adams

On numbers alon Palmeiro is a first run HOF. That's all I've got to say about that. Also, FINALLY a Pitcher I'd induct into the HOF in John Franco, but if Lee isn't in, how in the blue heavens do you justify Franco?

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

Quote:

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

But thats the point. OPS+ compares a player to the other players. A player who is dominant in his era will have a high OPS+. OPS+ of 200 in 2002 is the same as an OPS+ of 200 in 1980.

Well, it compares players to the league average of for that season. If the whole league generally becomes better at getting on base (like is true now), then the percentages year on year are going to be different. Therefore, a 200 OPS+ in, say 1981, is not equivalent to a 200 OPS+ in 2006. You've gotta be careful with things like that. OPS+ in the AL vs. the NL aren't even directly comparable, for most seasons.

Quote:

Blyleven I was stunned by how much support he lost between 2006 & 2007.

There were other things going on that distracted from Blyleven this year. Ripkin and Gwynn were there to be voted for, and the start of the whole McGwire, Sosa, Bonds debate was finally kicked off since Big Mac showed up on the ballot. With the voting classes that are coming up, he'll probably get in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dolfanar

On numbers alon Palmeiro is a first run HOF. That's all I've got to say about that. Also, FINALLY a Pitcher I'd induct into the HOF in John Franco, but if Lee isn't in, how in the blue heavens do you justify Franco?

I agree completely.

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

Quote:

Originally Posted by ohms_law

Well, it compares players to the league average of for that season. If the whole league generally becomes better at getting on base (like is true now), then the percentages year on year are going to be different. Therefore, a 200 OPS+ in, say 1981, is not equivalent to a 200 OPS+ in 2006. You've gotta be careful with things like that. OPS+ in the AL vs. the NL aren't even directly comparable, for most seasons.

If the whole league has a higher on-base percentage, then it makes it HARDER to ahve a higher OPS+ because you have to be significantly above the league average. Because it compares it to league average, it is able to be used to compare players from diferent eras. It shows how much above or below average you were. Like I used the Yaz/Mac example. Yaz in 1967 was just as above average as McGwire in 99.

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

I think that The Crime Dog's lack of a team identity will really hurt him. If he were on teams for longer periods he'd get in much sooner. I've heard a lot of writers say that he's not getting a vote from them at all.

EDIT: 6 teams, TBD twice. 7 switches in 19 seasons.

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

Quote:

Originally Posted by robinhoodnik

I think that The Crime Dog's lack of a team identity will really hurt him. If he were on teams for longer periods he'd get in much sooner. I've heard a lot of writers say that he's not getting a vote from them at all.

EDIT: 6 teams, TBD twice. 7 switches in 19 seasons.

If that ends up being why some writers don't vote for him, that is absolutely freaking ridiculous.

Players these days simply change teams often.

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

Quote:

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

If the whole league has a higher on-base percentage, then it makes it HARDER to ahve a higher OPS+ because you have to be significantly above the league average. Because it compares it to league average, it is able to be used to compare players from diferent eras. It shows how much above or below average you were. Like I used the Yaz/Mac example. Yaz in 1967 was just as above average as McGwire in 99.

It doesn't work out, though. If the underlying scale differs, you've gotta equalize them before comparing. It's the same principle as doing math with fractions. Before performing any operation, the divisors need to be made the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by robinhoodnik

I think that The Crime Dog's lack of a team identity will really hurt him. If he were on teams for longer periods he'd get in much sooner. I've heard a lot of writers say that he's not getting a vote from them at all.

EDIT: 6 teams, TBD twice. 7 switches in 19 seasons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

If that ends up being why some writers don't vote for him, that is absolutely freaking ridiculous.

Players these days simply change teams often.

I agree with Houston. What are the writer's going to do into the future about this? Since all of the upcoming players now have spent their entire careers in the unrestricted free agency market, players that have often switched teams are going to become more and more commonplace.

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

2012 is an interesting year. You got Bagwell, I'm not even going to touch the Palmerio issue, you can scratch Sosa off till at least 2013. Franco has a shot depending on how people's minds change in the next few years about relievers. I personally also like Percival but he is very unlikely to get in especially since alot better relievers haven't made it in yet. I think santiago is an interesting case. I think he has shot of gettin in. the fact that he played catcher should help him alot.

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

I don't know that the reason for voting or not voting for McGriff is the identity thing, I'm guessing here. He also just missed Toronto's titles which probably would have given him more clout. If given back the strike time, he'd have surpassed 500.
Given the full '94 season, in which McGriff played 113 of 114 possible games with Atlanta, he was averageing one homerun every 3.32 AB's. I assume that at his rate of games played, he'd have missed one more, so I used 160 games as the base. Now, he had 34 homeruns at strike time,and he was getting 3.75 AB per game. So I'm seeing it as him losing 172.6 AB's which would have given him a total of 597 AB. In that scenario McGriff bangs out 51.98 homeruns which becomes 52.
1995 had the season shortened by 18 games and spring training was a joke, so the players were rusty when they came back. Using the season as a whole though, given the 18 missing games back, (he also made every game this season) he winds up with 30.37 or 30 HR's for the season (I'm far too lazy this morning to figure out the career average vs. 1995 to figure the difference in a "normal" season output).

Given back that which was beyond his control, McGriff potentially retires with 514 homeruns. Which gets him in by ballot eventually.

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

Benny also had the steroid issue hit him. I'm guessing that he's out because of it. He's never been a marquee player, otherwise they couldn't ignore him.

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

Quote:

Originally Posted by robinhoodnik

Given back that which was beyond his control, McGriff potentially retires with 514 homeruns. Which gets him in by ballot eventually.

That's a lot of if's and's and maybe's. The same could be said for players who missed time in 81. I don't buy that, not that it matters 493-500... what's the big deal, are round numbers really that important? McGriff was a good player, but if guy's like Baines, Dawson and Canseco aren't in, McGriff shouldn't be either. He is a distant 4th in that foursome, imo. It's especially not that impressive when you consider he had his career extended by playing through expansion and the Juiced ball era (A luxury Jim Rice and Andre Dawson didn't have). Combine that with being a 1B... I don't know if I'd vote the guy in, and like I said I really like the guy back from following him in his Blue Jays stint, and I tend to be way more inclusive than most, and I'm not factoring in his vagabond like career at all. He may get in, but I would be seriously surprised if he didn't spend the better part of a decade sweating it out...

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

Quote:

Originally Posted by ohms_law

It doesn't work out, though. If the underlying scale differs, you've gotta equalize them before comparing. It's the same principle as doing math with fractions. Before performing any operation, the divisors need to be made the same.

The point is, that in order to be classified as a "dominant" player, you should be significantly above the average. All OPS+ does is adjust for league and park factors. It is useful in comparing players from different eras.

I mean, Albert Pujols is surely a star. His 2005 stats: .330/.430/.609, 41 HR, 117 RBI...OPS+ of 167. Carl Yastrzemski in 1970: .329/.452/.592, 40 HR, 102 RBI. They had nearly identical years, yet you can look at OPS+ and see that Yaz was a better player in comparison to his league than Pujols was, as he had a 178 OPS+.

The whole point is that it accounts for differences in leagues. Take the deadball error and say Honus Wagner. He had a year with an OPS+ of 168, basically the same as Pujols 2005. His line was .339/.416/.459, 2 HR, 71 RBI. If you look purely at those stats, you would be like "sure, Wagner had a good season, but Pujols was astronomically better. The fact is, Wagner's year was just as good as Pujols' given the era he played in.

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

I agree with that. The point that I was making is that you simply can't say that two guys that played in different era's and/or leagues with the same OPS+ were had about the same performance. A percentage (which is basically what OPS+ ends up being) is meaningless if you don't know what 100% is, and especially so when making comparisons where the 100% value could be vastly different.

I have a real problem with OPS+ standing on it's own, is all. If presented with the highest value and the average value for that player's league and season, it's extremely meaningful for comparison. If it's completely on it's own, as it's usually presented, it can be extremely misleading.

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

Quote:

Originally Posted by dolfanar

That's a lot of if's and's and maybe's. The same could be said for players who missed time in 81. I don't buy that, not that it matters 493-500... what's the big deal, are round numbers really that important? McGriff was a good player, but if guy's like Baines, Dawson and Canseco aren't in, McGriff shouldn't be either. He is a distant 4th in that foursome, imo. It's especially not that impressive when you consider he had his career extended by playing through expansion and the Juiced ball era (A luxury Jim Rice and Andre Dawson didn't have). Combine that with being a 1B... I don't know if I'd vote the guy in, and like I said I really like the guy back from following him in his Blue Jays stint, and I tend to be way more inclusive than most, and I'm not factoring in his vagabond like career at all. He may get in, but I would be seriously surprised if he didn't spend the better part of a decade sweating it out...

My bad. I don't think that he gets in eventually because of the adjusted stats. I should have said that if he'd accumulated the extra homeruns, he'd be voted in by the BBWA.
500, 1500, 3000, they're just the baseline by which players are judged. I think that there should be a lot more focus on the defensive side as well as hitting. Eventually they're going to run into a career DH with numbers that meet the minimum/s, and I can't wait to see how they handle that one. ;)

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

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.

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

Here is a fun one. This is the All-Time HOF futility report. The all-time top Vote getters (cumulative) up to 2006 (So this years voting not included) who AREN'T in the HOF.

Code:

Name Years Votes Ballots PCT Gil Hodges 15 3010 5665 53.1 Andre Dawson 5 1302 2510 51.9 Jim Rice 12 2824 5900 47.9 Rich Gossage 7 1633 3526 46.3 Lee Smith 4 829 2038 40.7 Tony Oliva 15 2138 6435 33.2 Steve Garvey 14 2197 6780 32.4 Bert Blyleven 8 1214 4023 30.2 Roger Maris 15 1642 5955 27.6 Maury Wills 15 1680 6222 27.0 Jack Morris 7 941 3526 26.7 Ron Santo 19 1749 6571 26.6 Marty Marion 18 870 3519 24.7 Harvey Kuenn 15 1502 6175 24.3 Tommy John 12 1205 4954 24.3 Jim Kaat 15 1359 6086 22.3 Allie Reynolds 19 816 3884 21.0 J. Vander Meer 27 562 3258 17.2 Don Mattingly 6 497 3026 16.4 Alan Trammell 5 393 2510 15.7 Dave Parker 10 777 4969 15.6 Dale Murphy 8 586 4023 14.6 Minnie Minoso 31 957 6627 14.4 Phil Cavarretta 14 537 3785 14.2 Lew Burdette 15 836 5907 14.2 Alvin Dark 15 738 5367 13.8 Ken Boyer 20 838 6256 13.4 Luis Tiant 15 918 6937 13.2 Dick Allen 15 787 6088 12.9 Joe Torre 15 795 6539 12.2 Dave Concepcion 13 765 6356 12.0 Hank Gowdy 24 436 3782 11.5 Mickey Lolich 15 660 5737 11.5 Orel Hershiser 1 58 520 11.2 Roy Face 15 671 6119 11.0

Man... Hodges hung in there, didn't he?

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

^^^ wow that is an amazing list. It's interesting to see how long some guys hung in there but didn't quite make it. Some guys having over 20+ years. Minoso had over 30 years!! athough that was before the rule change. The guy that really stands out to me is Dick Allen. He is the dominant player in mogul in the late 60's early 70's. And Baltimore always dominates.

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

That is one of the coolest lists that I've seen in a long time...
:)

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

Quote:

Originally Posted by TacoBoy

^^^ wow that is an amazing list. It's interesting to see how long some guys hung in there but didn't quite make it. Some guys having over 20+ years. Minoso had over 30 years!! athough that was before the rule change. The guy that really stands out to me is Dick Allen. He is the dominant player in mogul in the late 60's early 70's. And Baltimore always dominates.

Yeah plus the voting wasn't really consecutive. Minoso was first up in the late 60's and didn't come up again until the 80's. Weird.

Man, I'm almost tempted to say 3000 votes should be like 3000 Hits. Let them in! :p That would put Rice (with this years votes) and Hodges in atleast.

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

Quote:

Originally Posted by ohms_law

I agree with that. The point that I was making is that you simply can't say that two guys that played in different era's and/or leagues with the same OPS+ were had about the same performance.

About the same performance above league average...

Quote:

I have a real problem with OPS+ standing on it's own, is all. If presented with the highest value and the average value for that player's league and season, it's extremely meaningful for comparison. If it's completely on it's own, as it's usually presented, it can be extremely misleading.

The average OPS+ is always 100. And, of course no stat should ever stand on its own, but OPS+ is a quick, simple way to show "dominance."

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexanBob

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.

Bagwell had 960 LESS at bats than McGriff, and that more than makes up for the difference in counting stats. Look at rate stats. Bagwell's career line is .297/.408/.540, while McGriff's is .284/.377/.509. McGriff's OPS+ is 134, Bagwell is 150. Bagwell's peak was ridiculously higher than McGriff's as well. I really wish we could've seen what Bagwell's 1994 would've been without a strike. .368/.451/.750 with 39 HR and 116 RBI in 400 at bats is just plain ridiculous.

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

That actually is an interesting thought. Someone who gets at least that much support, over that many years, is obviously special somehow...

Quote:

The average OPS+ is always 100. And, of course no stat should ever stand on its own, but OPS+ is a quick, simple way to show "dominance."

ah, good point...
Still, that's average for that season, in whatever league the player played in. Since the average value changes and is different every year and for every league, 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.

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

Quote:

Originally Posted by ohms_law

That actually is an interesting thought. Someone who gets at least that much support, over that many years, is obviously special somehow...

ah, good point...

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

Re: 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.

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

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.
;)

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

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! ;)

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

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.

Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

Quote:

Originally Posted by robinhoodnik

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

Grrr...