Andre Dawson - lone HoF inductee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kenny1234

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.

---

That's pretty creepy because I just wrote the following on another message board:

Quote:

---

Blyleven is kinda like the pitching version of Rafael Palmeiro (not counting the roids, obviously). The reason Blyleven doesn't get the respect he deserves is because no one really considered Blyleven to be the best pitcher at any given time, mainly because he played on a lot of mediocre teams which kept his win totals low. But you look at the totality of his career, he threw 5,000 innings of 3.30 ERA ball. He's got all the career numbers you'd find in a hall of famer.

Palmeiro is the same way, 3000 hits and 500 home runs but no one really thought of him as the best hitter in the game at any point. He just had a really long career of being really good, and he probably would've taken the same circuitous route to the Hall that Blyleven is taking. Of course, thanks to his performance in front of Congress and his subsequent drug test failure, I doubt he'll last very long.

---

When I think Dawson, I think Expo, but I'm Canadian, so that probobly effects my thinking quite a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by actionjackson

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.

---

Trammell is more or less the 80s version of Barry Larkin. They both need to be in the hall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by actionjackson

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

---

Interestingly, CHONE WAR has Olerud and Dawson in a virtual tie at 56.6 and 56.8 WAR (Dawson in the lead by a nose). My guess is that Alomar and Blyleven will probably get in next year. Bagwell, Larkin, and Raines will probably do OK but not get elected while Brown and Olerud get shuffled to the bottom of the ballot. Palmeiro will join McGwire on the steroid sidelines, at least until Bonds is eligible. But all the guys that are close will stay on the ballot - though the bottom end players should get run off the ballot (guys like Murphy, Baines, Mattingly and Parker).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by actionjackson

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. ;)

---

VERY well said! I knew AJ would come in with the ringing sound of reason.

I am not really seeing anyone on here that is arguing that Dawson should have gotten in, but I also don't see anyone that don't think he shouldn't be in.

Hall of Very Good, not Hall of Fame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

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

---

I think he is just unbiased and realistic....I respect very much so how non-homer AJ is.....I can't say I am the same way.

Marty Noble on Alomar "Possibly the greatest second basemen since Joe Morgan, but I am going to make him pay for two spitting incidents, and leave him off my ballot for the first year."
Basically, he will vote for him next year, but left him off this year, bc of a spitting incident!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you're gonna vote for him ever, vote now...why wouldn't you?














****ing idiot.


way to "punish" someone for slightly negative moments......

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. Another example:


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?


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.

---

Personally, I only care a tiny bit what his teamates have to say about him and what you "saw" in his defense....

It isn't a strong enough argument IMO to give a guy a vote...I see it as weak justification for a questionable vote. Dawson is borderline, not awful that he made it, but there are others that I think are more deserving.

Thats the ultimate flaw in the system, writers and their emotions. Its pretty sad when Marioti is more of a bitter prick than I am, and apparently he takes it out on sports.

When someone says Morris deserves to get in because he was the ace of three world series teams....what do you say?

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.

---

You can see how often players went first to third, first to home etc and compare it to against other teams....you can actually see that.


just saying. ;)

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


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.

---

or like how HGM just said :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

When someone says Morris deserves to get in because he was the ace of three world series teams....what do you say?

---

I like Tananananananana better. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

When someone says Morris deserves to get in because he was the ace of three world series teams....what do you say?

---

**** you :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

When someone says Morris deserves to get in because he was the ace of three world series teams....what do you say?

---

That he gave up way more runs over his career than comparable pitchers of his era.

The problem with Morris is that, it's not as though guys with comparable stats to him are getting in. The guys who have comparable career stats are getting bounced off the 1st ballot and getting zero respect: Appier, Tanana, Dennis Martinez, Chuck Finley, these guys barely got any votes at all.

if you had to choose one for a hall of famer....Edgar Martinez or Tim Raines?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haveacigar

That's pretty creepy because I just wrote the following on another message board:

---

same things can be said about guys like Dawson, Martinez

What percentage of votes knocks a guy off the ballot?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haveacigar

That he gave up way more runs over his career than comparable pitchers of his era.

The problem with Morris is that, it's not as though guys with comparable stats to him are getting in. The guys who have comparable career stats are getting bounced off the 1st ballot and getting zero respect: Appier, Tanana, Dennis Martinez, Chuck Finley, these guys barely got any votes at all.

---

I agree (and personally would not vote Morris in, or Appier, or Tananna, or Martinez....etc) but many will argue for Morris saying that he had the winning percentage, and that he kind of grooved the ball when they were well ahead to get the game over..

I think that argument just says he was on good enough teams that he didn't have to fight like Blyleven for wins.

Bly had 16 1-0 wins.

sorry for all the posts, I was catching up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

What percentage of votes knocks a guy off the ballot?

---

< 5%

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

if you had to choose one for a hall of famer....Edgar Martinez or Tim Raines?

---

well, both deserve it, but Raines moreso.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

I agree (and personally would not vote Morris in, or Appier, or Tananna, or Martinez....etc) but many will argue for Morris saying that he had the winning percentage, and that he kind of grooved the ball when they were well ahead to get the game over..

I think that argument just says he was on good enough teams that he didn't have to fight like Blyleven for wins.

Bly had 16 1-0 wins.

---

Blyleven has multiple years where he had a sub-3 ERA and didn't have a winning record. I don't know how anyone could possible blame Blyleven for his poor winning percentage (people do it anyway, however)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haveacigar

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.

---

Brown didn't have longevity? :confused: :confused: 1986 through 2005 is not enough longevity for a starting pitcher? :confused: Take a look at the numbers. Absolute Grade A front of the rotation stud. Look particularly at 1995 through 2003 and look beyond the wins and losses and tell me you don't see a HOFer. 1995 - 2003 peripherals:

154 ERA+, 1.09 WHIP, 7.7 H/9, 0.5 HR/9, 2.1 BB/9, 7.7 K/9, 3.63 K/BB

All during one of the largest offensive explosions the game has ever seen. Career peripherals:

127 ERA+, 1.22 WHIP, 8.5 H/9, 0.6 HR/9, 2.5 BB/9, 6.6 K/9, 2.66 K/BB

All of this with almost 3300 IP in an era of offensive zaniness. Sure, he had the personality of a prickly pear, but how exactly does that differentiate him from 50% of those already in Cooperstown? Yep, he's a HOFer.

Larry Walker makes the guy who went in today look like chopped liver. Were his numbers inflated by the Coors Field effect? No doubt. Interestingly enough though in his epic 1997 season, he was a slightly better hitter away from Coors Field. He had a career OPS+ of 140 to Dawson's 119, with a career wRC+ of 145 to Dawson's 120. Dawson had two seasons where his OPS+ eclipsed Walker's career mark: 1981 and 1983. He had only one where his wRC+ eclipsed Walker's career number: 1981. Walker also had all the skills Dawson had. He was a marginally better fielder over the course of his career and definitely had a better arm than Dawson. Their SB/CS numbers are pretty even if you level the playing time. The number that sticks out like a sore thumb is his career .400 OBP to Dawson's .323. Walker's career OBP is 87 points higher than his career AVG, while Dawson's is only a putrid 44 points higher. I don't get how you can say that on the one hand Dawson is a HOFer but Larry Walker isn't. The numbers just aren't in your favour. I'm surprised to hear this coming from you. Your posts are usually way better than this.

The only guy of the five I mentioned that isn't a surefire no doubt HOFer is Olerud. Period. That doesn't mean any of the five will get in though as we should know all too well by now. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by actionjackson

Brown didn't have longevity? :confused: :confused: 1986 through 2005 is not enough longevity for a starting pitcher? :confused: Take a look at the numbers. Absolute Grade A front of the rotation stud. Look particularly at 1995 through 2003 and look beyond the wins and losses and tell me you don't see a HOFer. 1995 - 2003 peripherals:

154 ERA+, 1.09 WHIP, 7.7 H/9, 0.5 HR/9, 2.1 BB/9, 7.7 K/9, 3.63 K/BB

All during one of the largest offensive explosions the game has ever seen. Career peripherals:

127 ERA+, 1.22 WHIP, 8.5 H/9, 0.6 HR/9, 2.5 BB/9, 6.6 K/9, 2.66 K/BB

All of this with almost 3300 IP in an era of offensive zaniness. Sure, he had the personality of a prickly pear, but how exactly does that differentiate him from 50% of those already in Cooperstown? Yep, he's a HOFer.

Larry Walker makes the guy who went in today look like chopped liver. Were his numbers inflated by the Coors Field effect? No doubt. Interestingly enough though in his epic 1997 season, he was a slightly better hitter away from Coors Field. He had a career OPS+ of 140 to Dawson's 119, with a career wRC+ of 145 to Dawson's 120. Dawson had two seasons where his OPS+ eclipsed Walker's career mark: 1981 and 1983. He had only one where his wRC+ eclipsed Walker's career number: 1981. Walker also had all the skills Dawson had. He was a marginally better fielder over the course of his career and definitely had a better arm than Dawson. Their SB/CS numbers are pretty even if you level the playing time. The number that sticks out like a sore thumb is his career .400 OBP to Dawson's .323. Walker's career OBP is 87 points higher than his career AVG, while Dawson's is only a putrid 44 points higher. I don't get how you can say that on the one hand Dawson is a HOFer but Larry Walker isn't. The numbers just aren't in your favour. I'm surprised to hear this coming from you. Your posts are usually way better than this.

The only guy of the five I mentioned that isn't a surefire no doubt HOFer is Olerud. Period. That doesn't mean any of the five will get in though as we should know all too well by now. ;)

---

Walker = Hall of Famer
Brown = borderline, and a doubtful IMO....close, no hall of famer, and I honestly doubt he gets in....I am not convinced yet.

Olerud, sorry Coach, don't see it.

I think McGwire, Palmerio will get close once Bonds gets in.

Bagwell, probably will get in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haveacigar

Walker wasn't doing anything special until he got to Colorado.

---

He had three 4 WAR seasons with Montreal (5 in Colorado). Not HoF caliber, but still strong. 67.1 for his career which puts him around Duke Snider, Tony Gwynn, Jesse Burkett and Jim Thome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

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.

---

Should be an Expo. He doesn't get to pick, though. The HoF does, though they usually take the players wishes into account...but do override them sometimes. For example, if I recall correctly, Boggs wanted Devil Ray hat but the HoF said "No, that's dumb. Here's your Boston hat."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

When someone says Morris deserves to get in because he was the ace of three world series teams....what do you say?

---

"He wasn't." Dan Petry was slightly better than him in 1984. In 1991, Kevin Tapani and Scott Erickson were both better. In 1992, Juan Guzman (though Morris pitched 60 more innings, but Guzman put up a 156 ERA+ over 180 innings while Morris was league average over 240) and Jimmy Key.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

if you had to choose one for a hall of famer....Edgar Martinez or Tim Raines?

---

Tim Raines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

What percentage of votes knocks a guy off the ballot?

---

Less than 5.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by actionjackson

Brown didn't have longevity? 1986 through 2005 is not enough longevity for a starting pitcher? Take a look at the numbers. Absolute Grade A front of the rotation stud. Look particularly at 1995 through 2003 and look beyond the wins and losses and tell me you don't see a HOFer. 1995 - 2003 peripherals:

154 ERA+, 1.09 WHIP, 7.7 H/9, 0.5 HR/9, 2.1 BB/9, 7.7 K/9, 3.63 K/BB

All during one of the largest offensive explosions the game has ever seen. Career peripherals:

127 ERA+, 1.22 WHIP, 8.5 H/9, 0.6 HR/9, 2.5 BB/9, 6.6 K/9, 2.66 K/BB

All of this with almost 3300 IP in an era of offensive zaniness. Sure, he had the personality of a prickly pear, but how exactly does that differentiate him from 50% of those already in Cooperstown? Yep, he's a HOFer.

---

Kevin Brown's numbers are incredibly similar to Curt Schilling, The difference is that Schilling has 5 more innings.... they have the same 127 ERA+. I'd rate Schilling as the better HoF candidate because of the postseason, but your HoF line is awfully thin if you draw it between the two. John Smoltz and Mike Mussina are two other guys with very similar stats (though about 200 extra innings). All 4 guys are deserving HoFers to me. I think all but Kevin Brown will make it in....because Brown "doesn't feel like a HoFer." It's a shame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

Marty Noble on Alomar "Possibly the greatest second basemen since Joe Morgan, but I am going to make him pay for two spitting incidents, and leave him off my ballot for the first year."
Basically, he will vote for him next year, but left him off this year, bc of a spitting incident!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you're gonna vote for him ever, vote now...why wouldn't you?

****ing idiot.

way to "punish" someone for slightly negative moments......

---

Of course writer who shall heretofore be referred to as idiot writer conveniently glosses over the fact that since the incident Alomar and Hirschbeck have become friends and the Alomar brothers have raised money for a foundation the Hirschbecks started for people affected by the rare brain disease that killed their son at age 8. He could choose to see the wonderful good that has come from a regrettable incident, but oh no, he has to drown in his own venom and lash out at an athlete for one incident in an absolutely brilliant 17 year career. Wow, how bitter do you have to be to do that? Bye the bye idiot writer, Hirschbeck actually called Alomar last night to wish him luck with the HOF vote. Looks like the main combatants have put it well behind them. Maybe you should too. Idiot.

Babe Ruth once punched an empire.

EJCTED FROM THE HOF!

and i mean, why would you "punish him"? I mean, how holier than though can you be?

****tard

You mean umpire HGM

That I do.

I really couldn't give half a sh!t who gets into the Hall of Fame and who doesn't. This is the only museum where there's a huge furor if there's a person missing in an exhibit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

I really couldn't give half a sh!t who gets into the Hall of Fame and who doesn't. This is the only museum where there's a huge furor if there's a person missing in an exhibit.

---

To most baseball fans and to most players, it's not just an "exhibit" at a museum. It's an honor given to the best players of the game we love.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

To most baseball fans and to most players, it's not just an "exhibit" at a museum. It's an honor given to the best players of the game we love.

---

I have my memories. I could care less who gets a plaque in a wing of a museum in upstate New York.

You know what, I'll take it back about Brown. I didn't realize his peak was as long as it was. I'll move him to "deserve," although it's scary how close he is to Schilling in terms of career numbers.

Brown will probably not get in while Schilling will, because voters suck.

Walker though, I'm sorry, he's just not quite good enough. He should have numbers better than Dawson, Walker played in the most favorable hitting environment in the history of MLB. He only had 8000 PAs compared to Dawson's 10,000+. His numbers in Montreal were solid, but far from HOF worthy.

Unfortunately for Walker, 90s Coors distorts stats so severely that it's really hard to give credit to any of their hitters. I don't think he would have been a HOF player without Coors. I can't prove that, and it's not entirely fair to Walker, but, that's just what it is. If he had had a longer career, maybe I'd give him the nod.

I wouldn't be pissed if any of the players you listed got in, but I wouldn't vote for Walker or Olerud.

Good for you. So, why are you in HoF threads then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haveacigar

Walker though, I'm sorry, he's just not quite good enough. He should have numbers better than Dawson, Walker played in the most favorable hitting environment in the history of MLB. He only had 8000 PAs. His numbers in Montreal were solid, but far from HOF worthy.

Unfortunately for Walker, 90s Coors distorts stats so severely that it's really hard to give credit to any of their hitters. I don't think he would have been a HOF player without Coors. I can't prove that, and it's not entirely fair to Walker, but, that's just what it is. If he had had a longer career, maybe I'd give him the nod.

---

Playing time is a legitimate concern with Walker, but I think his overall combination of offense (he posted OPS+'s of 151, 142 and 130 with the Expos and Cardinals, so I think it's obvious that he was a very good offensive player even without Coors, his unadjusted numbers are just eye-popping with Coors, but OPS+ does a good job adjusting that), defense and baserunning (Walker was strong on both counts) outweigh the playing time concern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Playing time is a legitimate concern with Walker, but I think his overall combination of offense (he posted OPS+'s of 151, 142 and 130 with the Expos and Cardinals, so I think it's obvious that he was a very good offensive player even without Coors, his unadjusted numbers are just eye-popping with Coors, but OPS+ does a good job adjusting that), defense and baserunning (Walker was strong on both counts) outweigh the playing time concern.

---

Honestly, if he had had 1000 more PAs in Montreal, he probably gets my vote.

I'm sorry if it appears that I'm slow, but I'm having a hard time understanding your stance on Walker. The tale of the tape:

Walker 8030 PA, 67.1 WAR

Dawson 10769 PA, 56.8 WAR

Um yeah it's not even close. Walker's a HOFer and Dawson is not. Add in the fact that Dawson basically took up a roster spot the last 5 years of his career. For those years he accumulated -0.2 WAR. In other words he was a tick below replacement level in those 5 years comprising 1693 of his 10769 PA. Interestingly enough during those years while he was chasing better counting stat numbers, he was killing his cred as a legit HOFer in my eyes and many others and you want to reward him for not figuring out that he was basically for lack of a better term a useless tit to his teams at that point in his career? Had he retired after 1991 or 1992, I would have no problem with him going into the Hall, but he staggered and limped his way to 1996, killing his teams as he went. It was pathetic really, and I guess if you're into pityf**cks you're happy he's going to Cooperstown...I'm not. Meanwhile Larry Walker figured out it was time to leave after his age 38 season when he put up a 130 OPS+...in St. Louis.

I keep hearing all these stories of Dawson's courage and ability to play through pain yaddah, yaddah, yaddah and then the "Oh think of how much better he could have been" drivel. Meanwhile Larry Walker gets no such respect. He played through tremendous pain too. Think of how great he would have been. Hypocrisy much?

My stance is that Walker's WAR totals are inflated by Coors. Sorry you don't agree, I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haveacigar

My stance is that Walker's WAR totals are inflated by Coors. Sorry you don't agree, I guess.

---

WAR does use park adjustments...do you think there's something about Coors that makes it not able to be adjusted for or something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

WAR does use park adjustments...do you think there's something about Coors that makes it not able to be adjusted for or something?

---

I think so, pre-humidor. It created an environment where it was hard to throw a major league breaking pitch of any sort, much less the effects on batted balls. I don't know enough of the mechanics of how they adjust for parks to say for sure, but I think the difference is so drastic that it skews WAR.

He's obviously better than Galarraga, Bichette, or Castilla. He's ahead of Helton by default, but depending on how he finishes his career, he might pull ahead. They'll be very close, however. And I think if Helton were to retire today, he wouldn't be in the hall of fame either.

Walker may have decided to walk away rather than hang on to the detriment of a team. Unfortunately, that's less playing time we have to evaluate him. If he hangs on another 2 seasons, he probably gets my vote. Likewise, if Helton has 3 or 4 more seasons at his current rate, I'd probably vote him in.

Maybe I put too much emphasis on career longevity. Oh well.

Also, do those WAR calculations include a defensive metric? I suspect that Dawson was a better fielder, mainly because he played CF for a number of years.

I'm also not sure I buy that Dawson was below replacement level his last five seasons. Below average, maybe.