Andre Dawson - lone HoF inductee

Oh man...I have so much to say about Dawson that I can't even begin. I've said it enough times in so many other places.

Suffice it to say that he's clearly a Hall of Famer. Look, you'll find no bigger fan of sabermetrics than me, but sometimes we take it too far. OBP is not the end all of great stats, and RBIs are not completely worthless. Power hitters in the 80s were paid to drive in runs--and given the choice between taking a walk or hitting a sac fly to drive in that runner from 3rd, Dawson would swing at a ball and get the runner home (he's 10th all time on the sac fly list). Irregardless of whether that's the proper strategy that was what was dictated at the time.

I think this article sums it up the best for me: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof10/...tim&id=4776214

Quote:

---

To fully appreciate Andre Dawson, you had to see him play in his prime, before the horrible artificial turf in Montreal ravaged his knees. You had to see him streak across the outfield on his way to a great catch, make throws that had to be seen to be believed, tear holes in the sky with line drives to all fields, steal bases in crucial situations and slide so violently into a base to break up a double play. You had to see him at work before and after games in the clubhouse, silently leading, quietly teaching that winning is all that matters in baseball.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BINGLEBOP

It's so disappointing that Bert Blyleven wasn't selected this year - so damn close. I really hope next year is his year.

---

how many years does he have left of eligibility?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

how many years does he have left of eligibility?

---

I think two more chances? Somebody can verify or correct that. So hopefully he'll make it just in time, although it would have been great to be inducted while his mother was still living.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

how many years does he have left of eligibility?

---

Two

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cfeedback

Oh man...I have so much to say about Dawson that I can't even begin. I've said it enough times in so many other places.

Suffice it to say that he's clearly a Hall of Famer. Look, you'll find no bigger fan of sabermetrics than me, but sometimes we take it too far. OBP is not the end all of great stats, and RBIs are not completely worthless. Power hitters in the 80s were paid to drive in runs--and given the choice between taking a walk or hitting a sac fly to drive in that runner from 3rd, Dawson would swing at a ball and get the runner home (he's 10th all time on the sac fly list). Irregardless of whether that's the proper strategy that was what was dictated at the time.

I think this article sums it up the best for me: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof10/...tim&id=4776214

---

That can be said about a lot of very talented players that missed out on great careers because of injuries. I would vote that Dawson barely misses it based on his numbers. I don't think it's a travesty that he made it, but I feel that Bly, Larkin, Alomar are all equally, if not more deserving than Dawson. That is my only argument here really. I think Dawson was a great player, happy to see another cubbie reach the hall (something for cub fans to be happy about I guess).

I would take Dawson over Rice, and I think almost everyone outside of Boston would agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

2) Franco is eligible next year, correct?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

3) Who was the 1 person that voted for Kevin Appier?

---

That's the vote that stands out? Not the 1 vote for David Segui? Or the 2 for Eric Karros? Or the 22 for Andres Galarraga?

Kevin Appier deserved more support than 1 vote. He's better than Jack Morris, for one. From 1990 to 1997, Appier pitched 1,643.2 innings with an ERA+ of 140. He was a phenomenal pitcher in his prime. (Yes, for 1,643 innings, Kevin Appier sustained a level of performance that Jack Morris never reached in a season, even a short season).

http://www.baseball-reference.com/le...e_career.shtml

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Yes.


That's the vote that stands out? Not the 1 vote for David Segui? Or the 2 for Eric Karros? Or the 22 for Andres Galarraga?

Kevin Appier deserved more support than 1 vote. He's better than Jack Morris, for one. From 1990 to 1997, Appier pitched 1,643.2 innings with an ERA+ of 140. He was a phenomenal pitcher in his prime. (Yes, for 1,643 innings, Kevin Appier sustained a level of performance that Jack Morris never reached in a season, even a short season).

---

HGM, you should be the president of the BWAA and fix the inconsistency by the voters.

Morris is famous for Game 7 along with Smoltz.

Well, that and 250 wins...100 more than Appier.

First HOFer to play for the Marlins?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cfeedback

Oh man...I have so much to say about Dawson that I can't even begin. I've said it enough times in so many other places.

Suffice it to say that he's clearly a Hall of Famer. Look, you'll find no bigger fan of sabermetrics than me, but sometimes we take it too far. OBP is not the end all of great stats, and RBIs are not completely worthless. Power hitters in the 80s were paid to drive in runs--and given the choice between taking a walk or hitting a sac fly to drive in that runner from 3rd, Dawson would swing at a ball and get the runner home (he's 10th all time on the sac fly list). Irregardless of whether that's the proper strategy that was what was dictated at the time.

I think this article sums it up the best for me: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof10/...tim&id=4776214

---

I don't think he's "clearly" a Hall of Famer at all. He's "clearly" borderline to me. OBP is not the end all of stats, but Dawson does have the lowest OBP of any Hall of Fame outfielder by TWENTY points...it's a very large gap in a very important stat, and it's not because he chose to hit sac flies instead of walk. It's because he made a ton of outs.

It's a shame that the turf wore out his knees so bad, because had he stayed in center field his whole career and sustained average or better defense, he'd be a more than deserving HoFer, but injuries happen.

And sorry, but the "You had to see it" cop out is weak, and not a good HoF argument. It's usually a phrase used to justify voting for otherwise unqualified candidates since you can't really argue against it. As I said, I think Dawson is borderline. He doesn't really lower the standards of the Hall like Jim Rice did, but he's not overly qualified either. I don't vehemently disagree with anybody that thinks he's deserving (like, say, I would with a Jim Rice or Jack Morris), but I think he's just short.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

First HOFer to play for the Marlins?

---

Yes

FloridaFan9703 is definitely rejoicing today

Well, longevity is important, which is why Morris is ahead of Appier. But Appier isn't the worst person on that list. Why is Mike Jackson listed, and who voted for Ellis Burks?

Dawson is still a hall of famer with his full body of work, but lets not pretend like his OBP was just ok. It's terrible. When you have a career OBP of .323, that's terrible. That doesn't come from being an "RBI guy" or opting to hit sac flies when you could be taking a walk. That's just not having a very good batting eye.

It's a testament to his skill that he was still a hall of fame hitter despite that deficiency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haveacigar

Well, longevity is important, which is why Morris is ahead of Appier.

---

1,229 inning difference....16 point ERA+ difference....so Jack Morris has 1,229 innings of like 80ish ERA+ pitching on Appier.

Jack Morris: 39.3 WAR, best 5 years 23.6.
Kevin Appier: 50.4 WAR, best 5 years 32.2

I don't think it's close.

Quote from a phone-in maroon on local sports station: "It is a travesty that Joe Carter isn't still on the HOF ballot" Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! LOL. We're up to three callers now who think Joe Carter is a HOFer...FML...Goddamn hockey market hoser know nothings. :( :mad:

Then it devolved into a discussion where the host ripped into the fact that Keith Hernandez finished ahead of Joe Carter on the ballot in 2004. Uh yeah, and Hernandez should have gone on to further years on the ballot and should probably have eventually gone in, but Joe Carter was a horrible baseball player. A 16 year career with a 16.4 career WAR. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, a 1.0 WAR/season player is considered a HOFer in these parts. There was even a quote from Joe Carter from January, 2004 saying he was "shocked" he'd been knocked off the ballot. Um, that's because for once the writers got it right Joe.

The sterling list of 2009 1.0 WAR players courtesy fangraphs.com: Jerry Hairston Jr., Milton Bradley, Jack Cust, Omir Santos, Kenji Johjima, Jayson Nix, Laynce Nix, Ryan Doumit, Jesus Flores, Nolan Reimold, and Ryan Church. Hmm...rookies, veteran sacks of s**t and veterans with "issues". Is it fair to say Joe Carter overvalues his accomplishments just a tad?

I'm not sure if we even deserve a baseball team. Then again I must remember that it is the blowhards that tend to phone in to talk radio, but geez...and I'm a Jays fan who will always remember where he was when Carter hit that HR. HOFer? For one huge World Series HR and sweet jacks**t all else? Get a f**cking grip people.

For the record I would have put 7 names on my ballot if I had one:
Blyleven, Larkin, Martinez, Trammell, Raines, Alomar and McGwire.

I cannot understand the love for Dawson. His one MVP award he appropriated from a ton of his peers in the NL in 1987. Tony Gwynn, Tim Raines, Eric Davis, Dale Murphy and Pedro Guerrero were all far better that year and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Even his own teammate Ryne Sandberg arguably had a better season than him once you adjust for positions or they were at least equal. I really don't see much difference between Dawson, Mattingly, McGriff and Murphy when you adjust for career playing time. Before you go all bat s**t crazy Donnie Baseball, Crime Dog, and Murph fans, that is not a ringing endorsement. They're basically the same player: Hall of Very Good, but not Hall of Fame.

Dawson ranks 22nd all-time in Outs Made. Sure, it's partly a reflection of the length of his career, but the only players that he's arguably a better player than on that list are Aparicio, Vizquel, Brock and Maranville. Regardless of Aparicio, Brock and Maranville's "HOF status" and for that matter Vizquel's possible "HOF status", that is not a ringing endorsement either as they are all below the level of Mattingly, McGriff and Murphy. None of those seven players should be in the HOF and Dawson shouldn't be either.

For those that would argue against this post with the limp, lame old "But it's not the Hall of Numbers" bulls**t, save your breath. Writers justify their votes every year with numbers, unfortunately they use numbers like Hits, HR, Wins, ERA and worst of all Ribbies!. It is the Hall of Numbers and it always has been, well except for the wing they should set up called the: "Friends of Frankie Frisch Wing". To suggest otherwise is to completely ignore reality.

I really thought with the 2009 season awards that we'd turned the corner on this lunacy, but today's results drive home the point that the writers still don't know their heads from their a$$es, which is not a good trait to have, particularly when you're in charge of selecting HOFers. There's only one word for today's results: Ugh! As for Mariotti and the infamous 5 who didn't bother to vote: strip them of their voting privileges to send a message to the other writers to at least appear to treat the process with some respect. That's all I got...for now. ;)

If Dawson didnt play for the Cubs, I dont think we have this discussion.

As far as sending empty ballots, thats an outrage when you have Larkin of all people out there. Face of the franchise and played for one team an entire career which these media guys are suppose to love and he doesnt matter.:confused:

Writers really suck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haveacigar

Well, longevity is important, which is why Morris is ahead of Appier. But Appier isn't the worst person on that list. Why is Mike Jackson listed, and who voted for Ellis Burks?

Dawson is still a hall of famer with his full body of work, but lets not pretend like his OBP was just ok. It's terrible. When you have a career OBP of .323, that's terrible. That doesn't come from being an "RBI guy" or opting to hit sac flies when you could be taking a walk. That's just not having a very good batting eye.

It's a testament to his skill that he was still a hall of fame hitter despite that deficiency.

---

Any player with at least 10 seasons of major league experience gets thrown on the ballot and rightfully so a whole bunch of them never make it past their first year of eligibility. ;)

You really have no respect for your team's heroes. (AJ)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by actionjackson

I really thought with the 2009 season awards that we'd turned the corner on this lunacy, but today's results drive home the point that the writers still don't know their heads from their a$$es, which is not a good trait to have, particularly when you're in charge of selecting HOFers. There's only one word for today's results: Ugh! As for Mariotti and the infamous 5 who didn't bother to vote: strip them of their voting privileges to send a message to the other writers to at least appear to treat the process with some respect. That's all I got...for now. ;)

---

The award ballots are 28 or 32 writers that actually follow the game today, and includes some of the newly crowned BBWAA members like Keith Law and Will Carroll. The 500+ voters for the Hall of Fame includes a ton of old guys that don't keep up with all the advances in the game and such. If I recall correctly from reading a BTF thread last year, there's even one guy on there that's never even been a baseball reporter. I think they need to rework the electorate. It's a joke that blowhards like Jay Mariotti have a ballot yet someone like Bill James who has contributed an absolutely absurd amount to the game doesn't and newly added internet members like Rob Neyer, Will Carroll, Christina Kahrl, Keith Law and such have to wait 10 years to get a HoF vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by actionjackson

Any player with at least 10 seasons of major league experience gets thrown on the ballot and rightfully so a whole bunch of them never make it past their first year of eligibility. ;)

---

Actually, there is a "screening committee" that looks at all the eligible players based on the 10 season requirement. It consists of 6 people. If 2 of the 6 nominate a player to appear on the ballot, he gets on. If 1 or nobody nominates a player, he doesn't appear on the ballot. Mark McLemore, for example, didn't appear on the ballot this year and never will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

You really have no respect for your team's heroes. (AJ)

---

No, he just doesn't allow sentimentality and one good game to override his objectivity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

It's a shame that the turf wore out his knees so bad, because had he stayed in center field his whole career and sustained average or better defense, he'd be a more than deserving HoFer, but injuries happen.

And sorry, but the "You had to see it" cop out is weak, and not a good HoF argument.

---

I'm sorry, but seeing someone play is definitely a consideration when it comes to defense IMO. Even today the best defensive metrics are a bit lacking? When it comes to Gold Gloves, I believe Dawson's were earned and not built solely on his reputation as is the case sometimes with other players. Seeing the respect base runners showed his arm not advancing to third or home, day in and day out is something that the numbers don't always tell you. Another example:

Quote:

---

Any BBWAA members who aren't convinced should have talked to Dawson's teammates. Shortstop Shawon Dunston, who played with Dawson on the Chicago Cubs, remembers a game when they were leading the Astros, 10-0, in the fifth inning. Someone hit a ball to right and Dawson dove for it.

"[Cubs manager Don Zimmer] nearly lost his mind," Dunston said, relaying the story. "Andre comes in and Zim says, 'Andre, please don't do that. Let the ball drop.' And Andre says, 'That's the only way I know how to play.'"

---

That kind of sums up my feelings on Dawson. For a "borderline" player, as he may be (I'm not comparing him to Mantle or anything), sometimes the intangibles are the difference. And he's an A+ there. Going into the steroid era eligible players, clearly character is at least some factor with the voters--players under "suspicion" are not getting the votes they should based on the raw numbers. Shouldn't the reverse be true?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

If Dawson didnt play for the Cubs, I dont think we have this discussion.

---

And if he'd played the best part of his career for Boston, rather than the no man's land that was Montreal, he would've been a first ballot guy.

Couple more random Dawson quotes. Not saying they mean anything...I just like them. :)

I saw Andre Dawson. And let me tell you something. There were only two players in my lifetime whose teammates held them in awe. One was Mickey Mantle. The other was Andre Dawson. If you were around, if you saw them play, you know that. But the numbers don't tell you that.
Jerome Holtzman

When you hit a home run off Nolan Ryan, he meets you at third base. But when Andre hit one, he stayed near the mound and waited for the ball. That impressed me a lot. That's respect.
Shawon Dunston

Andre Dawson, the Hawk. No player in baseball history worked harder, suffered more or did it better than Andre Dawson. He's the best I've ever seen. Stand up Hawk. The Hawk. I watched him win MVP for a last place team in 1987 and it was the most unbelievable thing I've ever seen in baseball. He did it the right way, the natural way and he did it in the field and on the bases and in every way, and I hope he will stand up here someday. We didn't get to a World Series together but we almost got there, Hawk
Ryne Sandberg (HOF induction speech)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cfeedback

And if he'd played the best part of his career for Boston, rather than the no man's land that was Montreal, he would've been a first ballot guy.

---

Not when Boston had Clemens as their MVP player. ;)

About seeing people playing in person, thats a bunch of mularky. I remember arguing with Coach Owens about Deion Branch a while back. Just because you watched a guy doesnt make him better than he actually is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cfeedback

I'm sorry, but seeing someone play is definitely a consideration when it comes to defense IMO. Even today the best defensive metrics are a bit lacking? When it comes to Gold Gloves, I believe Dawson's were earned and not built solely on his reputation as is the case sometimes with other players. Seeing the respect base runners showed his arm not advancing to third or home, day in and day out is something that the numbers don't always tell you.

---

I think he earned the Gold Gloves early in his career as a center fielder. I think his two as a right fielder probably weren't deserved but weren't terrible. And, btw, the stats generally back up Dawson's reputation and follow the trend that the "story" would tell - his range was very good while in Montreal and center field, but dropped off to about average in Chicago as a right fielder after the knee injuries started to take their toll and his arm was always worth a couple runs above average (which is good).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cfeedback

And if he'd played the best part of his career for Boston, rather than the no man's land that was Montreal, he would've been a first ballot guy.

---

I think that might be an exaggeration. It took Jim Rice 15 years to get in (and yes, as I've said, Dawson is [much] better than Rice, but still).

I notice too, when it takes an entire essay to explain why a player should be in the HOF, he usually doesnt belong.

Randy Johnson - Best power pitcher in baseball for two decades.

Mark McGwire - Best power hitting 1B in baseball for most of his career.

Bert Blyleven - Best curveball in the game, great pitcher for lower market teams.

Andre Dawson - Uhhh, [insert essay here]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

And, btw, the stats generally back up Dawson's reputation and follow the trend that the "story" would tell - his range was very good while in Montreal and center field, but dropped off to about average in Chicago as a right fielder after the knee injuries started to take their toll and his arm was always worth a couple runs above average (which is good).

---

My only question is how do you judge how many runs he saved by runners not even bothering to try to advance because of his arm? I don't see any accurate way to gauge that other than by watching someone play and seeing how base runners held up rather than take a chance against him.

Andre Dawson seemed very un-excited at his press conference today. I mean obviously he must be excited but he just didn't show it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

I notice too, when it takes an entire essay to explain why a player should be in the HOF, he usually doesnt belong.

Randy Johnson - Best power pitcher in baseball for two decades.

Mark McGwire - Best power hitting 1B in baseball for most of his career.

Bert Blyleven - Best curveball in the game, great pitcher for lower market teams.

Andre Dawson - Uhhh, [insert essay here]

---

Are you aware that it's taken repeated long essays from guys like Rich Lederer to boost Blyleven's vote total? :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cfeedback

My only question is how do you judge how many runs he saved by runners not even bothering to try to advance because of his arm? I don't see any accurate way to gauge that other than by watching someone play and seeing how base runners held up rather than take a chance against him.

---

Take how many times a ball was hit to Dawson with, say, a runner on first base. Then find out how many times that runner advanced to third base (or home) and was successful and compare it to the average percent of time that a runner advances on that type of hit (deep, short, etc.). If Dawson's reputation caused less runners to attempt to go for the extra base, a below average percentage of players would've reached third or home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Are you aware that it's taken repeated long essays from guys like Rich Lederer to boost Blyleven's vote total? :p

---

Which is odd, because its pretty easy to tell he is a HOFer.

BTW I just want to make it clear that I dont feel like Dawson is just a terrible, terrible, pick. Hes not. But with all the other players out there that were obviously better than him, its hard for me to understand why those guys are pushed down in favor of Dawson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cfeedback

My only question is how do you judge how many runs he saved by runners not even bothering to try to advance because of his arm? I don't see any accurate way to gauge that other than by watching someone play and seeing how base runners held up rather than take a chance against him.

---

If I'm reading it correctly, CHONE rates Dawson's arm as 32 runs above average for his career. That is less than the 83 runs for Clemente, or the 50 for Griffey or Dwight Evans, but it is pretty good. As a comparison, Raines was 7 runs above average. Dawson's fielding is valued at another 37 runs - again, pretty good. It is the hitting that drags him down in total value, as compared to most other outfielders, and particularly after he moved to right field - and that is primarily because of the low OBP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

Bert Blyleven - Best curveball in the game, great pitcher for lower market teams.

---

Except that neither of those arguments is actually a reason to put someone in the Hall of Fame. I think Blyleven belongs, but I can see the case that is often made about him never being a dominant pitcher in the league. His Black Ink total is ridiculously low, and he was arguably never the best pitcher in the league. He just spent a ridiculously long time hovering around the 4th to 7th best pitcher in the American League. That adds up to huge career value, but just isn't that impressive to voters.

The way I see it with Dawson, he was good enough at many of the facets of the game that I can overlook his OBP deficiency to say that he is a hall of famer. You don't have to be perfect to be in the hall of fame.

I don't really agree with the requirement that you have to be the "best" at any one thing or during any one period of time to be in the hall of fame. Sam Crawford was one of the top 30 hitters ever. He also spent a large portion of his career being the second best outfielder on his own team.

If you produce at an exceptional level, you belong in the hall, regardless of who else was also being exceptional at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haveacigar

I don't really agree with the requirement that you have to be the "best" at any one thing or during any one period of time to be in the hall of fame. Sam Crawford was one of the top 30 hitters ever. He also spent a large portion of his career being the second best outfielder on his own team.

If you produce at an exceptional level, you belong in the hall, regardless of who else was also being exceptional at the time.

---

At some point, you're not really exceptional. Blyleven was exceptional for the ability to remain very good for much longer than most other pitchers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kenny1234

At some point, you're not really exceptional. Blyleven was exceptional for the ability to remain very good for much longer than most other pitchers.

---

so you agree he's exceptional?

There are many facets of the game, longevity is one of them. His longevity was exceptional. His pitching wasn't so bad either; with a 118 ERA+, he wasn't just consistently pitching, but consistently pitching at a pretty high level. A much higher level than Morris, anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Disappointing that Blyleven and Alomar were so close, but they're basically locks to make it in next year. Larkin's vote total is also disappointing. It's encouraging that Trammell and Raines saw an increase in votes, but they've still got a long way to go....Jack Morris also seems to be gaining traction...another disappointment.

Can't say I'm pleased here. Dawson isn't a terrible selection....he's better than Jim Rice and borderline overall...but I wouldn't vote for him. I'd be more pleased with this if Blyleven and Alomar made it over the hump.

---

See, that's the thing about these village idiots: there's no such thing as a "lock". If there was, Blyleven would have gotten in right away. As for the Jack Morris lovers, Dave Stieb was the pitcher of the '80's biatches. Stieb should be in the Hall, where Jack could visit his exhibit. You're going to seriously put Jack in for being a league average innings eater and pitching a 10 inning shutout in a World Series Game 7? Wow. It's one moment - all be it a big one. You're falling under the same spell that people in this market are under for Joe Carter's "HOF candidacy" (I admit putting Carter and Morris in the same discussion is tantamount to hyperbole, but I digress). Don't. The only pitcher from that Game 7 that truly belongs in Cooperstown is John Smoltz.

Saying Dawson is better than Jim Rice does nothing to justify the selection, but you already know that. It's like putting in the 50 or so (again possible hyperbole here) first basemen that are better than Tony f**cking Perez because the writers were stupid enough to put him in. If a guy belongs he belongs, regardless of the idiocies of the past. Not really talking to you HGM, because you already know this, but I get sick of the ridiculous "Well so and so is in the HOF and my favourite player has better numbers, so he should get in" arguments. Just because the writers were idiots in the past, and evidently continue to be, does not mean they should be idiots again. Although, judging from this year's results nothing has changed. Absolutely no love for Robin Ventura or Kevin Appier. Why? :confused:

I can't wait for next year when Jeff Bagwell, Larry Walker, Rafael Palmeiro, John Olerud (borderline, but IMHO a better overall player than Dawson), and Kevin Brown get added. The ballot will be swimming with legitimate HOFers and one borderline case. By my count there will be 11 legit HOFers plus Olerud on the ballot and the writers have nobody to blame but themselves for the mess that they created. Who loses out? The players on the ballot and the fans that rooted for them. Thanks a$$holes. Traveshamockery I say...Traveshamockery. :rolleyes:

Well, Raffy is getting the shaft because of roids. Forget him, no one's voting for him after that **** he pulled in front of Congress.

Of Bagwell, Walker, Palmeiro, Olerud, and Brown, I really think only Bagwell and Palmeiro deserve it. Olerud didn't have the longevity, neither did Brown. Walker wasn't doing anything special until he got to Colorado. Bagwell played as long as Olerud but his numbers are just so ridiculous that he gets in. Palmeiro has all the numbers, but you know how that's gonna go.

A position player that is somewhat like Blyleven is Palmeiro - rarely or never the best first baseman in the league, but spent an extremely long time near the top. Not a perfect comparison, but somewhat similar, and I'll think that you'll hear similar arguments, along with the steroid issue, when Palmeiro is on the ballot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haveacigar

I don't really agree with the requirement that you have to be the "best" at any one thing or during any one period of time to be in the hall of fame. Sam Crawford was one of the top 30 hitters ever. He also spent a large portion of his career being the second best outfielder on his own team.

If you produce at an exceptional level, you belong in the hall, regardless of who else was also being exceptional at the time.

---

Winner, winner, chicken dinner. Sticking with the Tiger theme how about Alan Trammell? He played in the shadow of Ripken and Yount in his own league and to a certain extent Larkin in the other league. Does that reduce his greatness somehow? Not in my world. A better example at the same position would be Bill Dahlen, whose only fault was having the gall to play in the same era as Honus Wagner and George Davis. He's the 3rd best SS of his era and probably the 6th best SS of all-time, 5th when you consider that A-Rod will be a 3B when it's all said and done. He is also hands down the best eligible position player who is not yet in the HOF...and it's coming up on 100 years since he retired. Now if anyone's got a right to be pi$$ed, albeit from the grave, it's Dahlen. The argument of best player at his position in his era is so ridiculously flawed and these two players demonstrate that.

Interesting question:

Will he wear an Expo or a Cub hat?

11 years as an Expo
6 years as a Cubbie

MVP as a Cubbie....he just said he is not really sure yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

It's a shame that the turf wore out his knees so bad, because had he stayed in center field his whole career and sustained average or better defense, he'd be a more than deserving HoFer, but injuries happen.

---

He also had a devastating football injury before he made the pros as a ball player....he said he never ran the same.....can you imagine what kind of player he COULD have been?