Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson

[TexanBob]

Rice was best described as surly with the media but not to the point where they hated him. He's not in the same class as Kingman or Belle when it comes to media hate.

The East Coast media like to bait players into saying things and then taking it out of context and blowing it out of proportion. The appropriately-named Dick Young made a career out of doing this. If you could get them off the record, I'm sure more ballplayers would tell you how much they thoroughly despise reporters. And it's these same reporters who then turn around and decide who gets in the Hall.

[dolfanar]

Rice was best described as surly with the media but not to the point where they hated him. He's not in the same class as Kingman or Belle when it comes to media hate.

The East Coast media like to bait players into saying things and then taking it out of context and blowing it out of proportion. The appropriately-named Dick Young made a career out of doing this. If you could get them off the record, I'm sure more ballplayers would tell you how much they thoroughly despise reporters. And it's these same reporters who then turn around and decide who gets in the Hall.

To be fair, while they have similar totals, Rice put up equivalent numbers playing in the 70's/80's where guy's weren't hitting 50,60 and 70 homeruns all around him. That counts for something. Still Belle, like Canseco never got an unbiased look at his career. What bother's me isn't that they aren't going into the hall, just that they weren't even considered at all, which is harsh.

[TacoBoy]

well Canseco should be a unamious selection into the Hall OF Shame. The guy wrote a book bragging about how everything he accomplished was due to steriod use and how he provided steriods to other players. He is the self proclaimed steriods guru. I think the couple of the votes he got was too many. If ever there was a player who didn't belong in the Hall it was Canseco..

[Redsauce]

I've got more respect (although not much)for Canseco for talking about it and admitting to it than I do for the players who lie about it. To be honest, I 100% agree that the Canseco shouldn't be in the HoF. He's a cheater. But the other cheaters who lie about it shouldn't get the time of day, either. I'm not saying Canseco's a great guy or anything--if right now he were under consideration for the HoF, you can be darn sure he wouldn't have admitted to steroids. But he's admitted to it, whatever his reasons.

[ohms_law]

He'll be on the ballot next year, won't he?

[robinhoodnik]

Canseco didn't get enough votes to stay on. He's off next years ballot. Rice was hated in Boston by the media, as most Red Sox stars eventually become. The media outlets here are petty and vicious on a level that's incredible. If a player gets an issue with one reporter, often within the month they're all on him like a pack of rabid jackals, regardless of whether he works for the competittion or not. Dan Shaughnessy is often an exception to this rule. He's the Lord High King Jackal, but gets undeserved backup too.

Ted Williams was treated poorly here, Ramirez (before his hammy pulls started), Rice, Clemens, Martinez, also, Boggs somewhat poorly, Greenwell is still often trashed. If they talk a lot though, they're in. Mo Vaughn got buzzed (probably worse) at a strip club, rolled his SUV on the highway heading home, and got a free pass, because he talked, and talked a lot. Oddly though, no Bruins, Patriots, or Celtics that I can think of get the business that baseball players get in this town.

An example is Craig MacTavish
The "official" scoop from legends of hockey:

After scoring 43 points in 1983-84, MacTavish was a involved in an automobile accident that forced him to miss the next season.

It's the same most places and on Boston sports radio, TV, and print (usually)

Here's the real facts of the "accident" from Wiki, which are accurate:

MacTavish missed 1984-85 after being convicted of vehicular homicide, having struck and killed a young woman while he was driving under the influence of alcohol. (MacTavish pleaded guilty to vehicular homicide and driving under the influence of alcohol in an accident the night of January 25, 1984 in Peabody, MA. Kim Radley, 26, of West Newfield, ME, died four days later of injuries sustained in the crash.[1]) MacTavish spent a year in jail as punishment for this offence. While incarcerated, he did manage to watch most of the games that were televised. After MacTavish was released from prison, the Bruins, feeling he deserved a fresh start, subsequently offered to let him out of his contract. MacTavish accepted.

Not a bad word about the guy though, ever, that I've heard, in any media outlet here.

[HoustonGM]

To be fair, while they have similar totals, Rice put up equivalent numbers playing in the 70's/80's where guy's weren't hitting 50,60 and 70 homeruns all around him. That counts for something. Still Belle, like Canseco never got an unbiased look at his career. What bother's me isn't that they aren't going into the hall, just that they weren't even considered at all, which is harsh.

Well, he wasn't as above league average as Belle was. 143 OPS+ vs Rice's 128

[disposablehero]

Belle's lowest of his 5-yr WARP is higher than Rice's highest. Belle put up Rice's raw numbers in 4 less years and 2500 less AB. Belle was better and its not even close. Too bad Belle acted like a jackass and played such a short overall career.

Belle 5-yr WARP 13.7, 12.3, 11.4, 11.3, 10.5 - .318 career EqA
Rice 5-yr WARP 10.4, 9.4, 9.1, 8.2, 7.4 - .295 career EqA

[dps]

The thing about Matthews is, he's a 19th century pitcher. Compared to other pitchers of the time, he doesn't exactly stack up favorably. For players from that time period, with all the rules differences and whatnot, that's a vital component to evaluating him don't you think?

I'm no expert on 19 century baseball, but here's a few points about Bobby Mathews:

First, his career started before the National League was organized. Of his 297 victories, 131 of them were in the National Association in 1871-1875. So his official major league record isn't 297-248, it's 166-130. That's no where near a HOF record on it's own. I have no idea how much credit he should get for his NA record.

Second, most of his good seasons from 1876 on were in the American Association, the weaker of the 2 major leagues of the time. He had only 2 winning records while in the National League: 12-6 in 1879 and 19-15 in 1882. His overall record in the National League in 1876-1881 was 60-75. 1879 was also his only year in the NL in which his ERA was below the league average.

He moved to the American Association in 1883 and went on something of a tear, winning 30 games each of his first 3 years there, goiing 30-13, 30-18, and 30-17. Those were the 4th, 8th, and 5th highest win totals in the AA in those years, but you have to remember that most teams were only using 2 starters at the time. His ERAs were below the league average each of those 3 years, but except for 1883, only a tiny bit below the average.

He dropped off to 13-9 in 1886, with an ERA half a run above the league average. In his final season in 1887, he only pitched in 7 starts, going 3-4, with a really ugly ERA.

If we give him full credit for what he did in the National Association, he probably should be in. Without his NA record, he isn't within a mile of the Hall IMO. So whether or not he should be in depends on how much weight you want to give to records compiled in the NA.

[ohms_law]

Just to add to the information here between Belle and Rice:

162 Game Average	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	SB	CS	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	*OPS+	TB	SH	SF	IBB	HBP	GDP
Albert Belle		616	103	182	41	2	40	130	9	4	72	101	0.295	0.369	0.564	143	347	0	8	10	6	20
Jim Rice		638	97	190	29	6	30	113	4	3	52	110	0.298	0.352	0.502	128	320	0	7	6	5	24

The thing that I notice is that their the same player. They have basically the same average, on base percentage, and slugging percentage as each other. Rice played 16 seasons to Belle's 12, but Rice spent his entire career in hitter friendly Fenway, while Belle played mostly in Cleveland. Cleveland Muni is a hitters bark as well though, although not quite as much as Fenway is.
Honestly, they should either both be in, or neither one of them should be in. Tough call.

I'm no expert on 19 century baseball, but here's a few points about Bobby Mathews:

Terrific analysis. Personally, I tend to discount everything (especially pitcher's stats) prior to 1901. The leagues simply weren't stable enough, rules wise, for it to be comparable to todays game. Someone like Cy Young is different, since they get in based on their contribution to creating the game in the first place, in my book. In general though, I don't think that we should be looking at stats from the National Association or American Association at all, for the Hall.

[HoustonGM]

Honestly, they should either both be in, or neither one of them should be in. Tough call.

Yeah, exactly how I feel.

[disposablehero]

Honestly, they should either both be in, or neither one of them should be in. Tough call.

not a tough call for me....both in the HoVG

[TacoBoy]

The thing that I notice is that their the same player. They have basically the same average, on base percentage, and slugging percentage as each other.

Well I guess if you consider, a 17 point difference in OBP, a 62 point difference in SLG and a 15 point diference in OPS+ the same then,
*Shrug*
I guess they're the same...

[ohms_law]

Well, Slugging is certainly different. I caulk at least some of that to Fenway... regardless, what's the margin of error no a 162-game OBA and SLG percentage? That's actually a question that I've been thinking about for a while, but I honestly don't know.

[TacoBoy]

Well I never Liked 162 game average stats. But the difference in the career stats is the same. But that is a good question. I think if Albert Belle wasn't such a knob his whole life he probably would have been around the 60% or so range as far as votes.