Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

[HoustonGM]

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

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

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

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

Let's see why.

You'd want a consistently tough out

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

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

Okay. Fair enough.

You'd want high character, leadership ability

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

and a willingness to play hurt. .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


:rolleyeS:

[nuzzy62]

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

[SFSteveG]

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

[TexanBob]

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

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

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

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

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

But let's see some stats Kurkjian conveniently ignores.

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

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

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

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

[FRENCHREDSOX]

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

[TexanBob]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[SFSteveG]

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

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

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

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

[TexanBob]

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

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

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

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

[nuzzy62]

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

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

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

[HoustonGM]

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

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

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

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

[SFSteveG]

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

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

[nuzzy62]

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

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

[HoustonGM]

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

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

[nuzzy62]

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

[disposablehero]

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

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


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

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

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