Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

[robinhoodnik]

1) Winning a World series or not doesn't speak to the ability of a team to win.

Whatchoo talkin' 'bout Willis?

[ohms_law]

comeon robin, I know your smarter than that. There's plenty of teams that beat the tar out of everyone during the regular season. Come playoff time though, anything can happen.

Besides, Boston is one of the few teams with an overall lifetime winning record. their 8444-7960 (0.515) since 1901!

[disposablehero]

*cough* 83 wins *cough*

[ohms_law]

...sorry, you lost me there.

[TacoBoy]

I think he was refering to St. Louis winning the series this year..

[HoustonGM]

The best managers in baseball look at the stats, acknowledge them, put them on the bench, and then go out and manage the game.
If what you're saying is true, then why haven't we arrived at a baseball season where everyone has an 81-81 record, or even close to it yet?

Honestly, where are you pulling this from?

BTW Houston, ever heard of Slapshot?

The band?

You just don't get it. Baseball is more than numbers. Reading your statistical books will only prove statistical points as if numbers are the only entity on which the game of baseball exists. Nine accountants line up again nine other accountants and throw formulas at each other. That seems to be your idea of the sport.

Every situation is obviously different, but seriously READ THE ARTICLES BEFORE RAILING AGAINST THEM. There's articles out there that break down the run expectancy of every situation during a game, and stuff like a sacrifice bunt HURTS a team's run expectancy more often than it helps.

Baseball is a really great game with a lot of interesting strategy and tricky bounces that don't fit nice and neatly on a spreadsheet. Getting the highest OPS+ is not the objective of the sport. The objective is to win games and then win more games than the other teams in the league. Certainly some statistics factor into it but the statistics are not the game. They are an adjunct to the game.

Yes, and how do you win games? By scoring runs. Doesn't it then make sense that something that HURTS YOUR RUN EXPECTANCY DECREASES YOUR CHANCE OF WINNING?!

The game is played with balls, bats and gloves, not calculators.

Quit the ignorance.

So in other words you CAN'T post someone from Dawson's era as a comparison.

No, I did not say that. I'm not as familiar with the 80s as I am the 90s/00s, so I can't come up with somebody off the top of my head. But the whole point of OPS+ is that it can easily be used to compare players from ANY era.

One guy who Dawson was a contemporary of who had similar numbers in the 80's was Barry Bonds. Pretty darn good company.

1986-1994. Bonds/Dawson, OPS+

103/124
114/129
147/137
125/115
170/136
161/115
205/114
206/91
182/82

Not close. At all.

That's what people fail to realize (particularly ones who are new fans) is that many of the "dominant" players of the expansion/Juiced ball/pathetic pitching era were hardly dominant (atleast not to the extant they were in later years).

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is exactly what OPS+ does. It ADJUSTS for the league. Barry Bonds in 2002 had a ridiculous OPS+ of 275. That is COMPARED to the rest of the league AND park adjusted. OPS+ puts ALL PLAYERS EVER on an even playing field.

Those offensive numbers that people are ga-ga about from guy's like Rodriguez and Griffey and Pujols aren't really impressive when you consider the sheer number of guy's consistently putting up those numbers in the current era. When Dawson was in his prime, you didn't have nearly the same number of players who consistently got 100 walks (or lord... 150 walks which was UNHEARD of until the late 90's!), and where 35-40 HR gave you an excellent chance of leading the league.

Yeah, counting stats were differnet, but OPS+ compares players to the rest of the league, and Dawson simply wasn't head and shoulders over the rest of the league like other guys are.

.285, 28 HR, 90 RBI, was an excellent season in Dawsons age.

You're going to need to proivde more stats than that, because, well that's just not enough. The closest season he had to that when I take a quick look at his b-r page is .274, 20 HR, 78 RBI. OPS+ of 124. Great season, sure, but not "dominant" to the extent that other players are.

I just did a query on the Lahman database as well. There were plenty of players that played alongside Dawson who had better (some much better) hitting. From 1978-1984, The top 10 (minimum 150 AB) sorted by slugging are:

For argument's sake, career OPS+ of some of those players and some others.

George Brett 135
Mike Schmidt 147
Fred Lynn 130
Dave Kingman 115
Reggie Jackson 139
Jim Rice 128
Robin Yount 115
Dale Murphy 121
Dave Winfield 129

Andrew Dawson 119.

Now you're talking OPS+.
Dawson Shows up three times on the OPS+ leaderboards:
1980 NL-OPS+ 136-(#6)
1981 NL-OPS+ 157-(#2)
1983 NL-OPS+ 141-(#5)

See? If he was dominant, he'd show more than 3 times.

George Brett, 10 times. Mike Schmidt, 13 times.

Not really. As you can see the guy was regularly amongst the top 10. OPS+ didn't catch that.

Top 10 in slugging. OPS+ includes ON BASE percentage. And Dawson plain sucked at getting on base.

Anyway, we aren't going to change each others mind, and none of us get a vote anyway so it's moot.

Well, it's just a friendly debate!

No, since we're being results oriented here, you can't have it both ways. They've either won the Series or they haven't. Billy Beane's had a great run in Oakland but he has yet to win a championship right?

So that means he hasn't been successful and statistical analysis doesn't work?

[ohms_law]

I think he was refering to St. Louis winning the series this year..

Ah yes, of course!
lol

OPS+ puts ALL PLAYERS EVER on an even playing field.

Well, it's a bit simplistic, but it's better than nothing. I, personally, don't rely on it completely. It's always worthwhile to look at the actual avg/obp/slg along with it, at least.

[HoustonGM]

A
Well, it's a bit simplistic, but it's better than nothing. I, personally, don't rely on it completely. It's always worthwhile to look at the actual avg/obp/slg along with it, at least.

Of course it's not complete, but it does give a good idea of dominance. The thing with looking at AVG/OBP/SLG is that you don't know what the average Avg/OBP/SLG was that year. If the average OBP is .310, than a .340 OBP is really good, even though that would be considered roughly average now a days.

Here's a good test. Think of players' you would consider dominant. Now, look at the single season OPS+ leader board. Who's there? Players that are universally considered the best and the most dominant. Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds, and Ted Williams take up 14 of the top 20 slots themselves. Some other names in the top 100 - Lou Gehrig, Mark McGwire, Jeff Bagwell, Roger Hornsby, Frank Thomas, Mickey Mantle, George Brett, Honus Wagner, Jimmie Foxx, Mike Schmidt, Carl Yastrzemski...

[ohms_law]

Yup, my kind of list.


Thing is, comparing guys like Gorman Thomas (who we were just talking about ) to the OPS+ leader board is hardly fair, so I generally don't do it. I like to find guys that have all played during the same time frame, and compare them to each other. Just like I did here, you know?

[disposablehero]

Dawson's rankings using VORP and 325 AB cutoff

1977 - 33rd overall in the NL, 11th OF in the NL
1978 - 43rd, 15th
1979 - 29th, 8th
1980 - 3rd, 1st
1981 - 2nd, 1st
1982 - 9th, 4th
1983 - 3rd, 2nd
1984 - 71st, 29th
1985 - 48th, 21st
1986 - 30th, 11th
1987 - 18th, 9th
1988 - 13th, 9th
1989 - 45th, 18th
1990 - 6th, 4th
1991 - 40th, 19th
1992 - 30th, 13th

It appears to me he was one of the most dominant hitters for a few years, at least, in the early '80s NL. He also ranks pretty well in comparison to NL OFers of his time. BUT, the majority of his career, he was not someone to fear.

When we have to qualify his dominance with things like "in the NL", "compared to other OF", and "of his time", it doesnt lead to HoF inclusion, in my book.

BTW - a few names off the top of my head that i link with Dawson's era (my era ) that are either better or just as good as him....Sandberg, Carter, Murphy, Pedro Guerrero, Schmidt

[ohms_law]

That's a great display of why I originally picked 1979-1984 for the comparison lists that I made last night. See, it wasn't arbitrary Dolfanar!


Don't forget Reggie Jackson and Rickie Henderson, DH. Oh, and of course Wally Joyner! What kind of an Angels fan am I?

[HoustonGM]

Yup, my kind of list.


Thing is, comparing guys like Gorman Thomas (who we were just talking about ) to the OPS+ leader board is hardly fair, so I generally don't do it. I like to find guys that have all played during the same time frame, and compare them to each other. Just like I did here, you know?

Well, if we're going to be called Andre Dawson DOMINANT, we really should compare him to plays that ARE dominant, and it's quite obvious to me at least that Dawson was not head and shoulders above the rest of the league - my definition of dominant. He was certainly an above-average player, but "dominant" is a whole nother story - one that a stat like OPS+ can help with.

It appears to me he was one of the most dominant hitters for a few years, at least, in the early '80s NL. He also ranks pretty well in comparison to NL OFers of his time. BUT, the majority of his career, he was not someone to fear.

Yeah, he had a small group of very very strong years, but he was not one of the "most dominant players" of his time.

The players you listed by OPS+: Sandberg, 114, but you also have to keep in mind that he was a power-hitting second basemen, which is what he's recognized for. Joe Carter, 104. (unless you're talking another Carter)... Carter was a pretty average player. He was almost a poor-man's Dawson - similiar power/speed combination, but couldn't hit for average and got on base even less - .306 career OBP. Dale Murphy, 121. Pedro Guerrero, 137. Mike Schmidt, 147.

[disposablehero]

No, I'm talking YBY Top 10 SLG 1977-1992

i did YBY Top 100 SLG 1977-1992 MLB, to paint a clearer picture

1977 - 51st
1978 - 55th
1979 - 48th
1980 - 25th
1981 - 2nd
1982 - 26th
1983 - 5th
1984 - 97th
1985 - 59th
1986 - 34th
1987 - 12th
1988 - 15th
1989 - 21st
1990 - 9th
1991 - 31st
1992 - 37th

i could do NL only if you prefer

[disposablehero]

(unless you're talking another Carter)...

yes, i am....Gary

from '77-'87 he was just as good as Dawson and played a much tougher position

[ohms_law]

Well, if we're going to be called Andre Dawson DOMINANT, we really should compare him to plays that ARE dominant, and it's quite obvious to me at least that Dawson was not head and shoulders above the rest of the league - my definition of dominant. He was certainly an above-average player, but "dominant" is a whole nother story - one that a stat like OPS+ can help with.

There is a difference between all-time Dominant and dominant within any single players playing era, though. Dominant within his era what dolfanar and robinhoodnick (among others) are mainly speaking to, so I'm perfectly willing to oblige their argument. He was popular, and he was an above average player for sure. That needs to be backed up by better stats though, really, in order for enough support to build behind a guy to get him into the Hall. That is my primary argument against Dawson making it, but then as I acknowledged earlier, Dave Winfield is in so...
*shrug*