Andre Dawson was elected to the Hall of Fame today, the only player selected. Barry Larkin, Bert Blyleven, Edgar Martinez, and Roberto Alomar fell short. Congratulations to The Hawk; you can check out his stats here. Check out the full HOF voting here.
A great, great man. Well deserved.
Great ballplayer who played a large portion of his career with bum legs from playing on the astro turf. Deserves to be in the hall.
Disappointing about Alomar.
He’ll be in the HOF soon enough. But should have been a no-brainer. As long as he gets in in the end, that’s good enough for me.
Dawson had to wait 9 years to get in. Its not like he was a first ballot HOF’er. Larkin, Blyleven, and Alomar will get in eventually, if not next year.
I’m stunned. The only one to get in is the guy with the 323 obp? Don’t tell me that OBP didn’t matter in his era. Isn’t one of the main objectives in the game to get on base and avoid outs? That’s all OBP reflects – how often a guy avoids an out. Additionally, if you look back at hall of famers they had good obp’s because they intrinsically know the point of the game even if they didn’t know about OBP. Examples – Schmidt – 380 obp, Willie Mays – 384 obp, Babe Ruth – 474 obp. Dawson – 323. Those other guys seemed to understand. But oh well. It’s more amazing that only Andre Dawson made the HOF.
Wow Babe Ruth at a career .474 is just SICK!
Ted Williams .482 OBP. Rediculous
*One* of the main objectives is to get on-base. However, how do you neutralize a good hitter (especially w/ runners on base)? You put him on with a walk. Also, you can score with an out (SF, fielder’s choice, etc). So avoiding outs isn’t the key. Advancing yourself and your teammates around the bases to home is the key. Not OBP. Dawson was one the all time greats at advancing runners (and he wasn’t bad at advancing himself – he had nearly 2800 hits).
What a joke, Dawson only has a .323 OBP and 119 OPS+. He was a good player but hardly a Hall of Famer.
The fact that Blyleven still isn’t in is pathetic.
3701 K’s = case closed vote him in!
how can you be against dawson and for blyleven? blyleven had a nice career but if you want him in the hall of fame all you’re doing is rewarding longevity, not excellence. he never won a cy young, his earned run average was not great. he had a very good career but he was not a dominant pitcher in his era. now barry larkin was a dominant player. and roberto alomar was a very dominant player. this bs about writers differentiating 1st ballot hall of famers from other hall of famers is a joke. no way alomar shouldn’t have gotten in now.
Because Blyleven is being punished for “only” 287 wins. He’d be in the HoF years ago had he won 13 more. He played on a lot of bad teams. He’s 5th in K’s, 9th in shutouts, pitched over 240 innings 12 seasons, 9 of which he pitched over 260 innings.
Don’t use Cy Young Awards as evidence. Too often has it been given to the guy with the most wins.
I’ve never understood the argument, “He shouldn’t be in the Hall; he never won a Cy Young/MVP award.”
I think we can all agree that those two awards are often given to the wrong guy. So why use them as any kind of barometer for HoF induction?
You shouldn’t compound one mistake by repeating it. Look at the stats/numbers/facts and it’s clear: Blyleven should absolutely be in Cooperstown.
FWIW, my 2010 ballot would have been:
Blyleven
Raines
Alomar
Larkin
The CY and MVP aren’t always awarded to the *perfect* candidate. Anyone in the top 3 to 5 each year had a great season. Agree? CY and MVP are not popularity contests. And at least 80% of the time they are dead on.
The CY and MVP aren’t always awarded to the *perfect* candidate. Anyone in the top 3 to 5 each year had a great season. Agree? CY and MVP are not popularity contests. And at least 80% of the time they are dead on.
You stat geeks really need to get over yourselves.
Are On-base percentage and adjusted OPS really too advanced for you to understand?
Stats sure beats “He was a feared hitter” as far as determining a Hall of Famer.
You stat nerds want a perfect player, there isn’t one. Trying to keep a player out of the Hall of Fame because of OPS? Are you kidding me? Not every stat is relevant in determing a player’s greatness. Basketball for instance, Shaq has a terrible career free throw percentage, does that stop him from being one of the most dominant forces to ever play the game?
Don’t use basketball. It’s no where near the same as baseball as one player can dominate a game on his own.
I agree not every stat is relevant. SLG isn’t that important for leadoff hitters who steal a lot. But OBP is important for everyone. And Dawson was lousy at getting on base over his entire career.
an extreme example but, a batter could sac fly RBI every at bat and have a zero OBP and be a devastating weapon. OBP is not a reason to exclude a HOF candidate. The Expos and Cubs paid him to advance runners not take walks. And he wasn’t a failure at getting on. He had 3617 times on base.
Gary Carter is in w/ a .334. Do you realize that the difference between him and Dawson is about 11 or 12 walks a year on average?
RBIs are useless. That sac fly is just an out if no one is on base. A mediocre OBP is enough of a reason to exclude Dawson from the HoF.
You’re not taking position into account with Carter. He played the most demanding defensive position where a lot of offensive production is uncommon. Dawson played the corner OF where the majority of teams get significant offensive production.
Scoring is not useless. It’s the whole point of the game. Discount an RBI if you like but it’s absolutely not useless. That’s hyperbole. The problem I have w/ many of the current stats is 1, they didn’t exist for players to play to back then and 2. more importantly they are not situation specific. A walk to Pujols w/ 1 out and runners 2nd and 3rd is near useless just like your sac fly example.
And Dawson won 4 GG in CF, on top of the other 4 he won at a corner.
RBIs are useless when judging an individual player because they can’t control their RBI situations.
Pujols’ walk in that situation isn’t near useless.
Pujols can’t control that walk either. Do you want to pitch to Pujols or Colby Rasmus/Mark DeRosa/etc? The answer is obvious.
And you can use the small sample size argument for a season or two for the RBI issue but most of the players we’re looking at for HOF faced 5000 or more RBI situations. Being 34th all-time with that sample size can’t be ignored. Especially when that is the primary stat his teams asked him to produce.
Pujols can’t control that walk either. Do you want to pitch to Pujols or Colby Rasmus/Mark DeRosa/etc? The answer is obvious.
And you can use the small sample size argument for a season or two for the RBI issue but most of the players we’re looking at for HOF faced 5000 or more RBI situations. Being 34th all-time with that sample size can’t be ignored. Especially when that is the primary stat his teams asked him to produce.
RBIs are useless when judging an individual player because they can’t control their RBI situations.
Pujols’ walk in that situation isn’t near useless.
Scoring is not useless. It’s the whole point of the game. Discount an RBI if you like but it’s absolutely not useless. That’s hyperbole. The problem I have w/ many of the current stats is 1, they didn’t exist for players to play to back then and 2. more importantly they are not situation specific. A walk to Pujols w/ 1 out and runners 2nd and 3rd is near useless just like your sac fly example.
And Dawson won 4 GG in CF, on top of the other 4 he won at a corner.
RBIs are useless. That sac fly is just an out if no one is on base. A mediocre OBP is enough of a reason to exclude Dawson from the HoF.
You’re not taking position into account with Carter. He played the most demanding defensive position where a lot of offensive production is uncommon. Dawson played the corner OF where the majority of teams get significant offensive production.
an extreme example but, a batter could sac fly RBI every at bat and have a zero OBP and be a devastating weapon. OBP is not a reason to exclude a HOF candidate. The Expos and Cubs paid him to advance runners not take walks. And he wasn’t a failure at getting on. He had 3617 times on base.
Gary Carter is in w/ a .334. Do you realize that the difference between him and Dawson is about 11 or 12 walks a year on average?
You’re right, ABNYC7. We shouldn’t use statistics to judge a player in a sport where nearly anything and everything can be quantified and normalized for each era.
While we’re at it, courtrooms should stop using silly things like DNA and other forensic evidence to help prove guilt or innocence.
Also, stop pestering me with so-called “evidence” that the Earth is round where I can clearly look out my window and see that it’s flatter than, well, flatter than the Hawk’s career OBP.
🙂
Exactlly! What’s it going to take?
And Blyleven had a 53% winning percentage and a 3.31 era, and offenses are much more potent with all the freaking drug users. I don’t care how bad his teams were, didn’t Steve Carlton win 27 games for a horrible Philly team?
Dawson deserves it every bit as much as Blyleven. Let’s also remember he (Bert) pitched for 22 years to accumulate those wins and Ks.
You’re acting like Howard Johnson or Tim Flannery was just elected.
People always bring up Carlton ’72 season. But that is incredibly rare. In fact, that might be the only example of a guy having a great W-L record with a crap team. Carlton’s teams were mediocre or worse in 70, 73, and 74 and he didn’t have a great W-L record those years. Carlton also had a crappy W-L record in 1978 when the Phillies won 86 games.Let’s also remember Nolan Ryan played 27 seasons to get his 324 wins and 5000 Ks.
Wow shocked. No alomar, raines, blyleven
I hate you buster olney for not voting for bert. Jack Morris was given Wins in 25 games when he gave up 5+ ER. Bert Blyleven? Four.
You don’t deserve wins for giving up that many runs. I have no sympathy that Blyleven is missing baseball immortality by 13 games because he didn’t get enough run support when he pitched dreadfully. Jack Morris doesn’t deserve to get into the Hall either so I don’t see how that’s helping your argument.
Dawson making the Hall is a joke. Congratulations to him, but seriously. .323 career OBP? That’s horrible. In 15 years we’ll see Alfonso Soriano getting in also. This ballot should have been Alomar and maybe Blyleven. That’s it. The BBWAA just proves again that it’s a joke of an organization. And I don’t care what kind of awards a player has won in their career, because that’s ALSO voted by the BBWAA. Edinson Volquez won 4th place in the ROY voting when he WASN’T A ROOKIE. These same people are the ones voting people like Dawson in… The system has to be changed, before they clutter the Hall with even more undeserving people.
Bert Blyleven is 9th all time in shutouts. He deserves to be in based off that factor alone.
Yes, I agree with you. He should be. But I’m just saying, the Morris argument is one you shouldn’t use because it’s not effective 🙂
Bert will get in. I have no problem with it taking this long though. Because even though everyone eligible w/ more than his 60 shutouts is in the hall (and everyone over 50, for that matter), he did have the 11th most starts in history. He’ll get in primarily on longevity, not quality. I looked at all of his 22 seasons. He was top 5 in his league maybe 5 times (based roughly on FIP-type stats, IP, HR, BB, and K against other pitchers in his league). Maybe 1 of those he had a good case for CY (1985 and the voters placed him 3rd in CY that year). Be patient, he’ll get in.
PL used it because Blyleven pitched on a lot of bad teams and never got bailed out of a bad performance to make up for one where he pitched well but still got the loss. I’m sure he lost more games giving up 2-3 runs than Morris.
Morris is easily the most overrated pitcher in baseball history. He’s only remembered for the 84 and 91 World Series He was bad in the 87 and 92 post-seasons. But because of 84 and 91, he gets the label of “big game/clutch/post-season pitcher”. His regular season stats are good but nothing spectacular.
I meant Heyman not Olney. Olney’s fine by me
Blyleven 5 votes short…snubbed again. He should’ve been elected a long time ago.
Andre Dawson’s .323 career OBP sees the Hall Of Fame further become the Hall of Somewhat Decent.
Well he did win ROY, 8 GOLD GLOVES, 10-Time ALL-STAR, MVP AWARD ONCE (SECOND TWICE) and 4 SILVER SLUGGAR AWARDS. Is that the resume of a somewhat decent player?!?
Well, if Jim Rice is in..so is Andre Dawson.
So should Murphy.
2 Time MVP. 5 time GG. 7 time AS. The guy was hitting 40+ HR’s when the rest of the crowd was barely cracking 30. Shortened career and playing on some historically awful Braves teams didn’t help. From 79 to 87 Murphy was easily one of the very best all around players. Doesn’t hurt either that he is a stand-up guy and was great for his communities.
He actually only hit 40 HR’s once (1987 he had 44). Lots of years with 30+ though.
Everyone hit 30 or 40 homers in 1987 – it was a “tight ball” year. Wally Joyner anyone?
True but no one hit more home runs in the 1980’s than Murphy. He was the definitive power hitter of the decade, the only 300 HR player of the decade. That with 2 MVP’s in the decade? Not the worst resume – he’d be better than some players already there, no?
There was this guy named michael jack who would dissagree with that statement. he had 3 mvps more homers and rbis and a ws mvp.
Apologies, Mr. Schmidt. You had 5 more than Murph during the 80’s – 313 to 308. That still shows that Dale has a strong HOF case.
Everyone hit 30 or 40 homers in 1987 – it was a “tight ball” year. Wally Joyner anyone?
Blyleven and Alomar left out? The voting process has become a joke…it is clear some of BBWAA members do not take this responsibility seriously enough
Yawn. No Alomar.
Congrats Hawk! Very surprised Robbie Alomar didn’t get it in. I hate when writers don’t put players in just because of “First Ballot” thing. LAME!
this is ridiculous that alomar didnt make it…dawson deserved it without question but the fact that alomar didnt make it is a travestyc
How many times has Alomar been on the ballot?
5 blank ballots were sent in. the BBWAA is horrible.
Ugh. The BBWAA is so pathetic it’s almost funny. I’d laugh if I wasn’t so disgusted.
I believe anyone who sends in a blank ballot should be suspended for 2 years. Don’t want to vote? Fine. Don’t bother showing up. And if you do it again, you lose your voting privileges forever.
I second that… I think there are plenty of stat nerds like us who could make the call of who should be allowed into the Hall of Fame just as easily and we would at LEAST submit a vote. That’s as good as saying you didn’t think ANYONE was deserving on that list? Stingy jerks…
The voting is based upon percentage. So by sending in a blank ballot, you ARE voting…and saying that you don’t believe any of these people should be elected. So essentially they are doing exactly what you mention…”saying you didn’t think ANYONE was deserving on that list”. If they declined to send in a ballot, their “No” vote would not count in the percentages.
I don’t agree with it, but that’s their choice and there is a distinct difference between not voting and sending in a blank ballot. Personally, I believe in a generous Hall of Fame, so I’d probably vote for the max 10 every single year.
To clarify, at risk of seeming to argue with myself, I think people like this (baseballink.com/archives/stories/mariotti-voluntee…) who seem to just be playing games with their votes should perhaps be reconsidered as voters.
I just meant to indicate that somebody COULD legitimately enter a blank ballot in a purposeful and meaningful manner. Let’s say a year came around where the top candidates were Jason Kendall, Jeff Suppan, and Bill Hall. I think it would be perfectly reasonable for folks to submit blank ballots that year. (And I would not vote for my max 10 people that year!) 🙂
Absolutely agree. I know that if I was given a vote, I would consider it a tremendous privilege. If you want to send in a blank vote, then you should lose your privilege. I mean honestly, how difficult is it to vote on this?
What the hell? Where is Alomar, Blyleven, and even Edgar Martinez….this is a joke
what a crap year. im not knocking Dawson who clawed his way in over the last decade and a half, but hes the only one? Alomar shouldve made it and Martinez shouldve done better to in my opinion.
Dawson is not a hall of famer. 3 seasons with 30 homers.? .323 obp? Seasons with 100 RBI +? 4. Career avg of .279?
The HOF is quickly becoming the Hall of Mediocre. What a shame.
Hitting 30 HR’s in that era was an accomplishment. Check out the league leaders back then and realize that nobody hit 50 HR’s like they do today.
disagree. anyone who wins 8 gold gloves, hits over 400 home runs and 300 steals is the type of player that does EVERYTHING well. dawson is a no brainer to me. only 2 other players had the 400/300, and one of those guys did it artificially
Too bad Dawson was never any good at getting on base. Juan Pierre is the sabermetrics whipping boy for his low OBP but his is much better than Dawson’s (348 vs 323).
I am dieing to know where the universal hate for Pierre comes from… I worship a player with speed and talent like that… my ONLY complaint about his is the infamous noodlearm.
He doesn’t walk enough and needs to hit 300 to keep a respectable OBP. He has no HR power either.
That’s a HOFer with an 806 career OPS folks. Ranks him 362nd all time. Greg Vaughn had a better OPS. This is absolutely pathetic.
Did Vaughbn have 400 HR and 300 SB and over 1500 RBIs
Jason Kendall would have hit 400 HR if he played 60,000 games, whats your point?
Having big raw numbers by playing too long isnt something to be proud of.
you are right. ask bert blyleven and phil niekro…..
“Jason Kendall would have hit 400 HR if he played 60,000 games”
This may be the most willfully stupid thing I have read on this site.
Did Vaughn have 9900 ABs? No. If you’re going to be a compiler, you’ve got to do better than that.
All the more reason that it’s obvious that OPS doesn’t tell the whole story.
The two that voted for Eric Karros should be stripped of their voting rights.
This is just great!! When I moved up to chicago and started watching the cubs I fell in love with 2 players; Mark Grace and Andre Dawson. Today I’m proud to say one of them is a hall of famer.
I am however very upset that BERT BLYLEVEN is not joining Dawson in the hall this year. How many times are they gonna keep BERT out?? 13 wins shy of 300. Career ERA of 3.31. And the most startling statistic, 3701 STRIKEOUTS!! Hello??? Why is this not Hall of Fame credentials??!?!?!?!?
5 blank ballots? what the fudge
Just remember. Bert Blyleven was 5 votes shy.
He could’ve really used those blank ballots BBWAA!
Dawson is a so-so HOF to me. But congrats anyway. On the other hand, Larkin, Alomar and ESPECIALLY Bert Blyleven belong in the HOF. The fact the idiots can’t get past the fact that he doesn’t have 300 wins is an absolute shame. He was the best pitcher to ever play on some horrible teams.
I thought the All-Star Game went to crap when it started using fan balloting.
Clearly the baseball writers aren’t any more objective than the masses of East Coast fans…
Really? Because I’m an east coast fan, and I hate the fact that the All-Star game is as it is, and that players like alomar and Blyleven are left out in the cold when both were far more deserving than Andre Dawson.
Someone actually voted for David Segui?????? That guys should lose his voting priveleges.
The shocking news is that some bozo actually thinks David Segui deserves a HOF vote.
Some good news for Cubs fans. Congrats to the Hawk – great player and a great person. We should have seen Blyleven and Alomar too but I think they’ll get in next year.
Wow…I’m completely unimpressed.
IMO…Blyleven, Larkin & Alomar should be in the HOF…Period. End of story.
Amazing. Slam dunks Alomar and Raines don’t make it. the deserving Blyleven doesn’t make it. But borderline HOF player Dawson does. I think you can make a better argument for Dale Murphy than for Andre Dawson.
I like Dale but he didn’t steal 300 bases.
This call for the Hawk goes well beyond OPS. Let’s not forget character and the adversity that Dawson had to overcome early and later on in his career, along with pop in his bat and a cannon for an arm. Read up on this guy, you’ll hopefully reconsider the semi-negative comments . Well deserved nod AD!!
It’s amazing that people can just look at a stat sheet and judge him solely by his OBP. Dawson played the whole game.
The Hall of Fame is about the BEST players of all time. Not the nicest. It’s not “Hall of Nice Guys.”
How can you say he played the whole game and leave out the part about getting on base? That’s only one of the most important parts…
So the best players are the ones that walk more.? Is Adam Dunn a better player than Dawson? How can you judge a player by one statistic? It’s obvious that OBP doesn’t come close to measuring a player’s worth. Are you telling me that if Dawson took one extra walk a week for his career that would make him a HOF’er? C’mon, you stat nerds gotta get over yourselves. I’m not talking about being a nice guy. I’m saying a guy who contributes what Dawson did on the basepaths, in the field and with his arm, in addition to what he did with his bat make him a great player. Yet, you want to say because he didn’t walk an extra 20 times he’s only a nice guy? Give me a break.
What are you basing his HOF status on, if not one of the most important aspects of batting, i.e. actually getting on base? Being a nice guy, playing good defense, and having decent speed (74.2 stolen base percentage? Not that great…)? Yeah, the guy had a lot of home runs, but so does Adam Dunn.
I don’t see the comparison you’re making. In less than half as many at bats (4417 vs. 9927), Adam Dunn has only 100 or so less home runs. If Dunn had as many at bats as Dawson, he’d have 710… I’m not saying Dunn is better (at least at this point), but if it happened that way, I’d say that’s much more deserving of a Hall of Fame spot.
I’m just saying you put too much value on one aspect of the game….walks. That is the sole reason his OPS isn’t higher. If Dawson takes one extra walk a week he’s suddenly got a great OBP and he’s a HOF’er? Walking doesn’t do much when the rest of your team can’t hit anyway. I think your view lacks an overall perspective of the type of player Dawson was.
And I still haven’t mentioned anything about a nice guy making him worthy of the HOF. He is a nice guy, so what? So is Matt Murton. That’s the line you’re trying to throw on me.
You take a team full of Adam Dunns and I’ll take a team full of Dawsons. Your team will beat me in strat-o-matic and my team will beat yours on the field.
an mvp on a last place team. obviously not many others on the team were doing anything spectacular. not to mention he played on a mediocre at best expos team for the beginning of his career, had his knees drained at least once a week, hardly took time off, had more outfield assists than errors, played almost as many games in center field as he did in right, and played them adequately, and never gave less than 100 percent. that sounds like a hall of famer to me. but what do i know?
Some people will tell you that the best strategy in baseball is “out avoidance” and that RBIs are meaningless. So, theoretically, making contact and grounding out to drive in a winning run is less important than taking the walk and hoping the next, less talented batter gets a two out hit. Do enough of the latter and you can create statistics that only a stat nerd can love.
I’m a big fan of the new advanced statistics. I’m not an old-fashioned curmudgeon who doesn’t see the value in the statistics being used today. They can be incredibly insightful, but I think they are often misused. To paraphrase Andrew Lang, some people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lampost; for support rather than illumination.
No one is denying that certain things in certain situations are better (by the way, you can’t ground out, thus scoring the winning run, if there’s two outs – if you walk and hope that the next talented batter gets a hit it would have to be one out or less).
Striking out with no one on base is not as bad as striking out with the bases loaded or a runner on third with less than two outs. These situations, however, occur so much less frequently than say, a career of almost 10,000 at bats. Getting on base at a .323 clip over 10,000 at bats is certainly a different situation.
Also, I love the name calling, really helps your argument there. Nice touch.
When I use the term “stat nerd”, I use it tongue-in-cheek. Some of my best friends are stat nerds and I, myself am one at times. So don’t read into that too much.
Minor mistake on the groundout example. It appears I pulled a Milton Bradley, but the point remains the same.
I only brought up the nice guy thing because you mentioned it and so have a bunch of other sportswriters I’ve read. It shouldn’t be coming up at all, imo.
And the reason his OPS isn’t higher is because he also only had a .480 SLG percentage. If he had a .550 SLG then it would also be higher.
What is the alternative to walks and hits? Oh yeah, outs. How many outs did he squander because he wouldn’t walk? Walking doesn’t do much when the rest of your can’t hit anyway? Really? It doesn’t give you a better chance to score more runs?
The Expos of the mid-80s were mediocre teams, sure. But they weren’t so utterly out of the race in more than one season that they couldn’t have used one or two walks a week. If we simply don’t care about walks, then let’s take away an arbitrary number of RBI that Dawson got from them.
My argument against Dawson is not hinging only around OBP, that’s just the thing that stands out the most. I also don’t have a problem with a player because his game is incomplete. The Hall of Fame should be the best of the best (and I mean in a good way, not like the best at throwing wild pitches). If Dawson had a .200 OBP but hit 1200 home runs, I’d say he’s deserving of the Hall, because he’d be the best home run hitter of all time (excluding steroids, etc. – shielding myself from Bonds here).
The problem is Dawson was a mediocre/above average player, and EVERY statistic proves it. Not just OBP. Pick one – home runs, RBI, AVG, AB/HR ratio, SLG, SB percentage. He never really excelled at anything compared to the best of all time. Your closest bet would be defense, which really doesn’t have a great statistic system, and is very subjective (so you can’t ever really tell who is the best) – as is anything which is voted on by the BBWAA. (I’m also against the logic of picking the three best OFs for Gold Gloves, it should be designated by LF/CF/RF).
The Hall of Fame should absolutely be better than this. To put him in the same grouping with the best players of all time is a laughing stock, because he absolutely doesn’t belong there.
Additionally, I hate the argument that “oh, Jim Rice is in the Hall, so Dawson should be too.” I agree with the logic, because it’s sort of a logical step. Unfortunately Jim Rice shouldn’t be in the Hall, but is anyway. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and what’s done is done. Nothing will change that, but we shouldn’t decide the future based on the past. All Dawson getting in will do is make people think that someone like Morris is deserving, or McGriff, or whoever.
then by your rational about defense being subjective, should ozzie smith be in the hall of fame? his offense was nothing spectacular, but he played great defense. that is why he is in the hall. is phil niekro a deserving hall of famer? reggie jackson?
Obviously Dawson is very good at nearly every aspect of the game (except walks). But not everything shows up on stat sheets. He could help you win a game in a number of ways: with his defense, his arm, he could steal a base if you needed it or just take that extra base (and no, SB% isn’t an accurate indicator of Dawson’s speed in his prime). Or he could just win it with a homerun. I think the sum of those parts are hall worthy. And his defense was phenomenal. I don’t need UZR to tell me that. His arm, in particular, had to be seen to be believed — a laser beam with pinpoint accuracy. If there was a statistic that showed how many people held up rather than take an extra base, I’d love to see it. Is he among the best in the HOF? Probably not. But he was a fantastic player, the guy you’d most pay to see play in his generation and I’d take put him in the HOF in a heartbeat over one dimensional players (like Edgar Martinez, for example.)At any rate, I agree with Dave Studeman of the Hardball Times, who has a more balanced perspective. Studeman wrote, “Like a lot of sabermetricians, I’m not ecstatic about Dawson’s election. His low OBP and walk totals stick out as a major negative. However, he was otherwise a great all-around ballplayer and…Dawson is certainly hall worthy.”
Are you by any chance, a Cubs fan? Just wondering.
You aren’t “just wondering”. The question is meant to dismiss my opinion on the basis of me being a Cub fan. Yawn. I’ve posted on this site for years and I’ve been as critical of the Cubs as anyone on here. My own icon is a lampoon of Jim Hendry and his myopic philosophy as a GM. I also feel that Dawson should enter the HOF as an Expo. The question isn’t whether or not I can think outside this box or if I am prone to tribal thinking. I have demonstrated the willingness to step outside the confines of fandom on countless occassions. The bigger question is whether you can step outside your box within the community of sabermetric baseball fans and see the game beyond a favored statistic. There is an element of this group that is rigid, tribal and unyielding to any view that doesn’t fit there own philosophy – the fundamentalists of the baseball stat world, if you will; the ones that cling to statistics like drunks do to lamposts. I have greater respect for writers like Studeman or Keith Law who understand the value of sabermetrics but also have the clarity of vision to see beyond it. So the real question is: Can you?
Calling out ownership and calling out players are totally different. Do you really think that Dawson making the Hall of Fame had nothing to do with being a nice guy? That’s one of the major reason he made the Hall of Fame. What’s changed in the last nine years? Why is Dawson SUDDENLY worthy of being a HoF player?1) The writers have changed. Older writers are out, newer writers are in. These writers have absolutely zero backbone and go with sob stories and vote in their friends and people they grew up watching. Thus people like Jim Rice, Goose Gossage, and Bruce Sutter get in.2) Andre Dawson fits into this category. Andre Dawson is an incredibly nice and great human being. I have met him before and I must say that he truly is a great man. 3) Andre Dawson gets in.It’s pretty clear, actually, that voting Dawson, who has the worst OBP of all HoF OF, had nothing to do with his stats. He is a misfit in the HoF. Whose plaque are you going to put him next to? Jim Rice is a safe bet.And of course I can step outside my box and see the whole game in its entirety. What I see was a great player. But not an all-time great player, and thus I don’t feel he deserves to get in. Neither does Jim Rice, but the two shouldn’t be related, and unfortunately they absolutely were. If we CAN compare people to previous generations/players and make a decision regarding the HoF (which we seem to be doing at this point =), however, then I choose to compare Dawson to someone like Mantle. Mantle played with bum legs in a more pitching dominated environment and still managed to put up great numbers despite being drunk/hungover for games.
Why do you think I’m calling out Hendry? Because of his hygiene or taste in fashion? I’m obviously calling him out because of the players he has brought in…and at ridiculous contracts of which they aren’t worthy. C’mon now. I have nothing against Hendry (he’s reputedly a great guy) except the type of players he has built this team around. That’s the only thing that matters when you’re a baseball fan criticizing your GM. There is little to no distinction between criticizing your GM and criticizing the players he brings to the team.
You’re attempt at a progessional 3 step process to explain how Dawson got in because he’s a nice guy is just plain silly. The “support” you claim are subjective opinions and sweeping generalizations about “newer” writers. To say it has “nothing to do with stats” is inaccurate. It’s more accurate to say it isn’t based on the statistics of your choice (which is even further indication of your rigidity on the matter.) Those “statistics” actually boils down to just one stat — Dawson’s walk rate. And to many people who actually do venture outside the insulated world of sabermetrics, it isn’t enough to keep him out of the HOF.
The only thing close I said about Dawson being “a nice guy” as you so stubbornly insist, is when I said in a post, “Congrats to the Hawk – a great player and a great person.” Maybe that’s what you’re referring to? And if so, where does it say he deserved to make it because he was a great person? The point of that post is that sometimes good things happen to good people. Who doesn’t like when that happens? You wasted a lot of time trying to make a point out of something you apparently misunderstood.
What, you think the majority of the writers who vote follow sabermetrics? You think their opinions are statistically based rather than by opinion? Almost every award in recent memory voted on by the BBWAA is subjective and questionable. This falls under the same pot.
And again, my biggest qualm with him is his OBP. But he hasn’t reached any of the subjective milestones that writers have come up with in the past to reach the Hall of Fame. He doesn’t have 500 home runs (not even 450), doesn’t have 3,000 hits. His RBI total isn’t overwhelming. For a guy with great speed, his bum knees and inability to get on base left him with a mediocre number of runs scored. I don’t care how great he ran the bases, and how much this doesn’t tell the story – the fact is he has a 74.2 SB percentage. The guy is among the top 25 of all time in at bats, and was a pretty good player. That’s why he’s amassed the totals he has, and even with that, he STILL isn’t anywhere as good as most of the players in the HoF.
Anyway, I’m done with this. The writers need to stop voting in their friends and childhood heroes. These last three years have been appalling. If you go back and include Sutter, that’s four out of the last five. If they’re going to try to make an attempt to change the system, then they should make it a 85-90% required vote to get in. Let the veteran’s committee go back in the future and sort out the rest when all is said and done.
In the entire history of baseball, the original voting class selected only five members for greatness. Obviously, we knew that number would go up in the future. But when you have people voting for David Segui, and others like Bob Klapisch voting for six guys in one year, you have a problem.
Some writers may not fully comprehend sabermetrics but it’s pretty safe to say they understand OBP. And you cannot dismiss the likelihood that some do understand sabermetrics at a high level but chose to look past that one statistic. I would agree with you, however, that the system is flawed. The fact that Raines, Alomar and Blyleven were left off is a travesty, in my opinion. The David Segui vote doesn’t concern me because no one is under the illusion that he would ever have gotten in or that his vote took away a vote from a more deserving candidate. Surely there was an ulterior motive for that vote, but I don’t believe there is any malice involved or that the overall integrity was compromised. Maybe the sabermetric community should put up their own HOF. I’d certainly be interested though I believe it would have it’s own unique set of flaws. However, it could be an alternate view for people to consider; like critics awards in the movie industry. But in the real world, the HOF is an organization subject to politics, favoritism, and nostalgia in addition to achievement — just like any other reward system. That’s life. I don’t think there’s anything absolute or sacred about the HOF…and I’m completely okay with that. It’s something set up for all fans to enjoy, not just those who strictly follow advanced statistics. Baseball is bigger than sabermetrics and I think the HOF reflects that.I’m going to leave it at that. You have your opinion and I have mine. I’m always open to changing my mind, but I haven’t read anything that convinces me that Dawson isn’t hall-worthy.
So character should count? We better take down Ty Cobb and Cap Anson’s plaques.
I say we let the FANS vote for the Hall of Fame!! Who’s with me???
No.
Every Yankee and Red Sox would be first-time ballots, and small-market teams would never get in.
Though that doesn’t seem altogether much different than the status quo…
Sadly, the boneheaded/bandwagoning Red Sox/Yankee fans would prove you right.
I say just make it completely stats based.
Mo Vaughn was probably sitting at home going “YES! I actually do have a chance!”
I don’t why people are screaming about OBP. It is silly in the 80’s it was better to strike out swinging, than not to swing the bat at all. The mindset of you can’t get the big hit if you don’t swing the bat is not good for you OBP.
The best players of all time, regardless of what era they played in, had the best (or at least respectable) OBP/OPS. The Hall of Fame should be the best players of all time. Andre Dawson is not one of them. Period.
How about Gary Carter? Ozzie Smith? OBP can not be the end-all, be-all of stats.
Tim Raines is a Hall of Famer. If Jim Rice is a Hall of Famer, so is Andre Dawson.
Dawson is now 1 of 63 outfielders in the history of the game to be selected as a hall of famer. He is Hall of Famer #292 all-time and MLB Player #203. Some rarefied company he just entered.
five votes between the hall and bert blyleven. and five ballots handed in blank.
personally, i think that the public should be able to see how each writer cast their ballot; i know that a number of writers will publicly declare who they are voting for and i think that is the way it should be. not knocking dawson, per se- but comparing the number of offensive categories he appears in the top 10 of historically- top 15 even; to the number of pitching categories that blyleven makes into the top 15 of…
Blyleven is 9th all time in this stat Ive never heard of called SHUTOUTS. That must be a really negative stat, I mean if you were 9th ALL TIME in whatever “shutting out” a team is, that must be a really terrible thing, RIGHT?
Check out that weird “CG” one, too.
Take a look at those IPs and SOs, too. Man, these stats just boggle my mind.
Dawson, Larkin, Alomar and Blylevin all deserve their place in Cooperstown. Martinez is close – just don’t know what to make of these DH only type guys in the steroid era (not suggesting that Edgar did anything wrong – it’s just those numbers back then were crazy). He was unbelievably good from 95 (when he became a full time DH) to 2001. His average year slash was: 329/446/574. In other words, his average for 7 years was about the same as Joe Mauer’s MVP season this year.
The DH only guys are going to pose an interesting problem. IMO their bar should be much higher to get in…….But with the way the voting goes, who knows.
Disagee, Dawson does not belong in the Hall of Fame. Larkin was injured too much too. Alomar and Blyleven should be no doubters though.
Larkin fits in the category of very good, but not great players. If he didn’t have all those injury years, he’d be much more deserving.
Can we just turn the voting over to Baseball Prospectus and Fangraphs please? Ugh… How do Alomar and Larkin NOT get in? Factors against Raines:
1. Didn’t have 3,000 hits
2. Rehab stint
3. He’s not Rickey Henderson
Alomar, Raines, Blyleven, and Larkin (probably) will likely get in eventually, but either they are or they aren’t Hall-of-Famers. That shouldn’t change year-to-year.
Tim Raines gets my vote as most overlooked for the Hall. Blyleven and Kaat seem to gett he same knock that plagued Don Sutton…..career longevity. Take a look at Raines’s numbers.
Larkin is iffy due to those injury years. The other three, though, absolutely deserve it, and much more so than Andre Dawson.
If Andre Dawson can get in, then Vladimir Guerrero will surely get in.
No love for Ellis Burks
Hard to see Dawson in the HOF when pitchers as Jim Kaat and Bert Blyleven are still waiting.
Blyleven had the 2nd best curve ball ever saw and best was by a journeyman reliever named Mark Clear in early 80’s that had little control over it, while Blyleven had pin point.
Imagine the kids now voting on HOF will have a new crop of week kneed OF’ers, or other such HOF not deserved like Rice and Dawson they will want to enshrine next year, since they keep putting these hacks in and always overlook the MASSIVE amount of complete games (242 for Blyleven, 180 Kaat) year after year.
The ability to thow a complete game should not be a qualification for the Hall. The majority of pitchers or a different era were expected to toss all nine. The fact is…ALL of these current candidates are borderline. From Blyleven to Raines to Murphy. The sad fact is that Jim Rice ushered in the nostalgic era for voters. Rice gets in on the Red Sox ticket and Dawson gets in on the Cubs. If Dawson is able to last on the turf in Montreal he’s still looking up Dale Murphy’s rear on the ballot.
Look a little beyond both Blyleven’s CG and at the rest of the stats they amassed and they both played for brutal teams over the course of their long and distinquished careers, except for very short windows, like Kaat for the Twinkies in ’65, then again Phillies from 77-80 when he was finished. 283-237 career record, with teams like the Washington Senators? Dawson was known for his HR totals, of which he hit 438.. Lets see, 283 wins and 438 HR’s and then Blyleven and his 287 Wins, playing for only a couple of good Pittsburgh and Twins teams, on top of over 3700+ career strikeouts he amassed? I cannot see how these writers keep putting these hacks in year in and out. It is flat out wrong.
If they can keep putting these guys in? Why not throw in McGriff, Martinez and all sorts of other hitters that flat out don’t belong and are on the ballot, for that matter? Put in pitching talent like Luis Tiant, Frank Tananna, Curt Schilling etc.. 200 game (low) winners that are about equal, not pitchers that flat out deserve it in Kaat and Blyleven’s case.
Congrads for the former Expo and Cub. I like the voting, but I still think that Bly and Alomar should get in.
This is Alomar’s first time on the ballot…he’ll get in…relax. Dawson deserved it!
Fred McGriff????? his stats are better than Dawson’s. to only get 20% is ridiculous.
McGriff played ok 1B. Dawson won 4 GG in CF and 4 more at RF. Dawson also has 300+ steals. McGriff might get in but Dawson was a factor at the plate, in the field, and on the bases. Dawson was a more complete player.
IF there was ever a 1st ballot HOF to get in has to be Alomar though both Alomar and Bert will get in next year…If Dawson/Rice gets in you have to make a pretty good argument that Dale Murphy should be able to get in too. But maybe over time he will once all the guys from the steriod era start coming in (Mcguire 23.7%) than there will be more appreciation for guys prior to this era and there respected numbers. We will have to wait see if the pre-roids era guys get more votes moving forward
congrats hawk!!!!!!!
Good news. The Hawk was a great player. Alomar and Larkin deserve to be in. It’ll really be a HOF when Pete Rose and Mark McGwire are inducted.
Kinda makes the whole voting thing a sham when a top 10 second baseman of all time doesn’t get voted into the hall on his first time on the ballot. 10 Gold Gloves(most all-time for 2B). 12 time all star. 5 times in the top 6 in MVP voting.
Is it always the same writers voting? How does he get in now compared to say, two years ago?
Blyleven left off again… what a shame. Seriously, there’s only eight pitchers who have ever thrown more shutouts, and only four have registered more K’s. Not only that, but no one’s going to come close to either of those marks again.
Tim Lincecum would need to stay healthy and strike out 252 per season for the next 12 seasons to eclipse Bert’s mark. The fact that he’s not in the Hall of Fame but Andre Dawson is… unreal. The Hawk was a good player, but for him to get voted in ahead of Blyleven is an absolute travesty.
HOF merits are so numbers based. Some people put up numbers but then don’t have that superstar or historical signifigance like some. However, IMO, you can make a case for the following:Roberto Alomar and Barry Larkin should be automatics and IMO are victims of small minded voters who refuse to let guys like them in on their 1st ballot. 24 all-star appearances and 14 GG between the two of them says it all.Lee Smith-3rd in saves all-time and was #1 before Hoffman and Rivera blew by him. 7x all-star and led his league in saves 4x. How do you keep a guy with 478 saves out of the HOF?Harold Baines-No other hitter w/ at least 2,800 hits, 300 hrs and 1,600 rbi has been kept out of HOF like Baines. He has more hits, rbi, walks (double), bat avg and obp than Dawson. .Fred McGriff-7 hrs short of 500 hrs. What’s really the difference between him and Willie Stargell except that McGriff moved around a lot more? .284/.377 and 493 hrs is pretty damn good.Tim Raines- Top 5 in SB all-time behind Henderson, Brock, Cobb and Hamilton. 808 SB total. His SB % of 85% is better than Henderson (81%) and Brock (75%). And he had well over 2,500 hits, 1,500 runs scored and a lifetime line of .294/.385.Blyleven- Penalized for playing on horrible teams. In years where he posted an era of 3.00 or less he is only 159-123. Put him on a good team and years like 1973, when he went 20-17 w/ a 2.52 ERA, 1.12 whip, 25 CG, 9 shutouts in 325 IP, he would’ve easily won 30 games on powerhouse teams like the Orioles or Oakland A’s. On better teams Blyleven would easily have won another 50 games over the course of his career. Despite playing on such bad teams like the Rangers, Twins and Indians buring the 70’s and 80’s he still managed to win 17 + games 7x and was the definition of a work horse with 8 years of 270 + IP.
Will echo you of Lee Smith YFS78. They finally enshrined Bruce Sutter, Rich Gossage, but left out Lee Smith? How?? Do they have some kind of wacky criteria for relievers, or are the HOF voters just a bunch of hacks all along? Lee Smith actually played on good teams from time to time and also on big market teams for pretty much his entire career and put up huge numbers.
This is another guy that deserves it, but once again.. “hacks with a bat” keep getting enshrined..
Welcome to the conundrum that is HOF voting.
I’m a bit too young to fully appreciate Lee Smith, and I’ve been spoiled on Mariano Rivera, but I know that the guy deserves it just a little bit more than Sutter and Goose.
Baseball focuses too much on nubers: I saw Andre Dawson and Jim Rice play and both were feared hitters. When they were playing in their prime, nobody considered them ‘pretty good players’ or ‘good not great’….pitchers hated to throw to these guys. Dawson was much more complete player than Rice. Comparing Dawson to guys like Delgado or Vaughn (Greg or Mo) strictly based on numbers is downright silly. Dawson had a cannon of an arm and prior to his knees going bad, he was just as much of a threat to steal a base as to hit a HR. Hitting 30 HR’s in that era was hard to do….hell, Kirk Gibson won a MVP with less than 30 HR’s and had around 80 RBI’s.
I’m not looking at his numbers because I saw him play. Do some research, I promise you will find guys from the old 50’s and 60’s that have much worse numbers than Dawson that are in the HOF.
If its strictly just numbers then I guess there tons of guys currently playing that are gonna be HOFers if they keep it up.
The DH only guys are going to pose an interesting problem. IMO their bar should be much higher to get in…….But with the way the voting goes, who knows.
———–
I agree. Edgar Martined posted great bat avg and obp but his cumulative numbers aren’t eye popping when considering that he was a 1 dimensional player as a DH. Hitting was his main attribute and he still doesn’t place among the best.
Problem with the HOF is that when they initially set up the Veteran’s Committer they inducted a lot of their old friends who weren’t “real” super stars (sorry Rabbit Maranville).
YAY! the Hawk ruled!
Tim Raines is a HOF. Compared to Lou Brock, who is a HOF and should be, the stats are very, very similar. In fact Raines beats Brock in quite a few key categories.
this is a joke what idots voted for venturi and down add it up alomar and blyleven could have both went in this year with the hawk also come on voters thats all you could give mcgriff
2010 Hall of Fame voting
Name Votes Pct.
Andre Dawson 420 77.9%
Bert Blyleven 400 74.2%
Roberto Alomar 397 73.7%
Jack Morris 282 52.3%
Barry Larkin 278 51.6%
Lee Smith 255 47.3%
Edgar Martinez 195 36.2%
Tim Raines 164 30.4%
Mark McGwire 128 23.7%
Alan Trammell 121 22.4%
Fred McGriff 116 21.5%
Don Mattingly 87 16.1%
Dave Parker 82 15.2%
Dale Murphy 63 11.7%
Harold Baines 33 6.1%
Andres Galarraga 22 4.1%
Robin Ventura 7 1.3%
Ellis Burks 2 0.4%
Eric Karros 2 0.4%
Kevin Appier 1 0.2%
Pat Hentgen 1 0.2%
David Segui 1 0.2%
Mike Jackson 0 0.0%
Ray Lankford 0 0.0%
Shane Reynolds 0 0.0%
Todd Zeile 0 0.0%
Note: 405 votes (75%) required for enshrinement. Induction July 25, 2010 in Cooperstown, N.Y.
The amount of votes that some of these players got is mind-boggling.
Hate to be debbie downer, I love Hawk…but is this really a MLB trade rumor?
At this point, I’m completely fed up with the BBWAA. It’s ridiculous how bad some of their selections are. Blyleven (as PL has brought up) is 9TH in SHUTOUTS! 242 CGs and a 3.31 ERA. How do you NOT elect this guy? Alomar and Raines not getting in is a disgrace as well,
Then you look at some of the other guys that get votes – David Segui, Pat Hentgen, Kevin Appier, Eric Karros, Robin Ventura (who earned 7!!). I’d bet there are at least two writers who voted for at least one of these guys, and omitted one of the obvious choices.
Someone else said it – let the guys on FanGraphs vote. Hell, give Tim a vote. The Hall has become a joke because of these guys.
Also 11th in starts. So he had a few cracks at that 9th place in shutouts. Listen, I looked at all of Bert’s seasons. Based on FIP-type stats, he was only top 5 in his league like 5 time. He will get in on longevity but give it time. He was no slam dunk HOF pick.
Congrats to Andre Dawson. When I was small, my favorite ballplayers were Ryne Sandberg and Andre Dawson. I remember when Sandberg was not a first ballot HOF was a slap in face. When Ryno got in with 3 tries, I was very happy. Now, Andre Dawson in the HOF; my hats off to him. Bert Blyleven and Roberto Alomar should get in next year. Other than Sandberg, Alomar was a great defensive player and good hitter for a 2B. Larkin, Morris, Trammell, Raines, Baines, Parker and Murphy have no business getting a single vote. What kills me is how does Ellis Burks, Eric Karros, Kevin Appier, Robin Ventura, Pat Hentgen and David Segui (WTH!!!) get a single vote. In my opinion, Edgar Martinez not a HOF. Good hitter but not great in additional to his history full of injuries. I look at Don Sutton in the HOF, I ask myself HOW!!!! That guy should be revoke from the HOF. Don Sutton is a better version of Steve Trachsel with longevity.
Ryan,
Ventura must have gotten his votes for when Nolan Ryan publicly humiliated him when he charged the mound, put him in a head lock, then put several knots on his head.. How funny that was years ago. One of the best highlight reels ever seen of a batter that thought they were going to “get a pitcher” and failed to do so that have ever seen.
What a crock that David Segui only got 1 vote. No wait… I mean that he got 1 vote.
David Sequi, Pat Hentgen, Kevin Appier, Eric Karros, Ellis Burks, Robin Ventura, Andres Galarraga, Harold Baines, Alan Trammel!!!!
This is 190 wasted votes! Plus five empty ballots. BBWAA is a major joke and has been for a long time. Blyleven and Alomar are easy votes especially this year. This is the HOF not who was your favorite player growing up!
Mattingly should be in.. 9 Gold Gloves, Best player in baseball 1984-1989, 1 MVP, All-Star, best defensive 1b in the sports History….
Yes he doesnt have the longevity and gaudy stats (tho his OBP is higher the Dawsons), but also for 15 Years he WAS Baseball, in the biggest market in the country. No one else mattered. It was what is Donnie Baseball doing today.. He was and will always be my generation’s Mantle.
Dawson definitely deserves. The interesting aspect that no one seems to have mentioned is the fact that he’ll be the second player going into the hall of fame as a Montreal Expo. Same as Gary Carter. Dawson spent 11 of his 21 seasons in Montreal compared to 6 in Chicago. In fact, Montreal is where he hit his most home runs and won Rookiw od the Year. Sorry Cubby fans.
He wasnt a hall of famer last year, or the year before, or the year before, or the year before, and so on, but hes a hall of famer now?
After the last few years with guys like Dawson and Rice getting in, the Hall Of Fame has gone from the elite to the good.
Guys should be on the ballot 1 year. If the writers dont feel you deserve a spot in that first year then you dont deserve to be in on your 10th year.
He wasnt a hall of famer last year, or the year before, or the year before, or the year before, and so on, but hes a hall of famer now?
After the last few years with guys like Dawson and Rice getting in, the Hall Of Fame has gone from the elite to the good.
Guys should be on the ballot 1 year. If the writers dont feel you deserve a spot in that first year then you dont deserve to be in on your 10th year.
I don’t think I expect people to get every selection right with only one try. Seems the multi-year system works fairly well.
I’m so happy Hawk got in. He was certainly one of the more deserving guys along with Alomar, Blyleven and Raines in that order. I feared that ridiculous Jim Rice induction last year would really lower their standards.
If you were being sarcastic, then ignore this comment.
But it DID lower their standards. That’s why he got in over Alomar, Blyleven, and Raines.
Still not exactly sure what Rice’s Hall case was but Dawson was a superior player to him.
Great job Andre, well deserved in spite of the obp. Remember, it’s only one facet of the game. Voters didn’t keep Gwynn or Boggs out even though they didn’t hit many home runs. Granted, obp is important, but it’s not the only measure of a player. Dawson did enough else to deserve enshrinement.
Too bad for Alomar and Blyleven, they both deserved to get in this year. I’d guess the spitting incident kept just enough voters from putting him in first ballot. For Blyleven it’s the obtuse dinosaurs who refuse to acknowledge new-age metrics. They’re a dying breed and given that Blyleven got so close this time I’d guess he’ll get in either next year or the year after. Just in time.
Surprised that Larkin didn’t get closer and that the Crime Dog got such a low vote total. It’s also surprising and sad that Jack Morris got so many votes, another lesson on voters being misguided. Btw, who voted for David Segui? If that person also voted for Morris he needs to have his voting privileges revoked.
Edgar Martinez and Tim Raines should have been voted in too…. Raines should be in already and Martinez was good enough to be first ballot. It’ll reflect poorly on the voters if neither ends up getting in while players like Tony Perez and Jim Rice are in.
Edgar Martinez, Roberto Alomar, and Barry Larkin got robbed. I’m sure Larkin and Alomar will get 80%+ of the vote next year, but it’ll be a real shame if Edgar doesn’t get in. Pujols, Manny, and Edgar are the 3 best RH hitters of the last THIRTY YEARS and that’s not hyperbole. Mariano Rivera called Edgar Martinez the toughest RH hitter he has faced in his career. Guy was a hands down first ballot Hall of Famer who is getting punished because a punch of purists hate the DH. Well guess what, the DH isn’t going anywhere. It would shorten the careers of SuperStar position players by years and rob fans of the chance to see these players play past 35. Do you think the players association, much less AL fans, are going to allow that? I think a DH has more value to a team than a really poor defensive OF. How the hell can you say Manny’s OF play has any semblance of positive value to a team? His defense hurts them game in, game out. Edgar Martinez didn’t damage teams from a defensive perspective for the better part of 2 decades like that. So why will Manny get in first ballot and Edgar struggles to get any respect. Total bull.
I’d take A Rod over Edgar in your top 3.
Ok maybe this is a better way to look at why dawson deserves to be in,in todays game if u had a young guy on the open market and promised he would hit 400 homer runs steal 300 bases and hit for a career 279 average win 8 gold gloves 4 silver slugger and twice be mvp…there wouldn’t be one team who wouldn’t be drooling to land him.Yes some of his stats aren’t eye popping but the rest are enough…speed power and a very good defender…and i agree a case can be made for the other guys on the list…especially alomar.
“Some good news for Cubs fans. Congrats to the Hawk…”
I don’t get the Cubbie love. Hawk isn’t likely to go in wearing a Cubs cap.
Nolan Ryan doesn’t belong in a list with Ted Williams, Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth. You wrote that like he’s the best pitcher of all-time.
Agree on Alomar snub, though I can’t stand the guy for spitting on that umpire. He’s trash but was an outstanding player, have to give him that.
Don’t agree on Larkin. Borderline. Definately feel Raines is a HOF’er. Not his fault he was overshadowed by Rickey Henderson, one of the greats of all-time.
“I don’t get the Cubbie love. Hawk isn’t likely to go in wearing a Cubs cap.”
I didn’t think it was a difficult concept but I’ll explain it to you. Dawson played for the Cubs and was a fan favorite. He played hard. He played hurt. He made some incredible, exciting plays with his bat, his arm, his legs and his glove. We like Andre Dawson regardless of what cap he wears.
Mattingly should be in.. 9 Gold Gloves, Best player in baseball 1984-1989, 1 MVP, All-Star, best defensive 1b in the sports History….——————–“Donny baseball” was great but he doesn’t belong in the HOF, sorry. Hall Of Great Players Who Were Screwed Due to Injuries” but not the HOF. A 5 year period isn’t good enough to make it in. I would suggest that Albert Belle deserves in ahead of Donny. Albert Belle: 10 years, .295/.369 line and averaged 172 hits, 39 dbls, 38 hrs, 124 rbis. Forced to retire at age 33 due to a hip injury. His name has never been associated with steroids, although I wouldn’t be shocked if it were. But facts are facts. You can “convict” a man if there’s proof but you can’t for lack of proof that he didn’t. Was he a jerk, especially to the media and hecklers? Yes, but if known racists like Cap Anson, Ty Cobb and other can be in the HOF then I’m certainly not going to hold his disdane for jerks like Bill Madden against him.Belle…..AL home run leader (1995) AL RBI leader (1993, 1995-tied with Mo Vaughn, 1996) AL doubles leader (1995-tied with Edgar Martínez) AL runs leader (1995-tie with Edgar Martínez) AL slugging percentage leader (1995, 1998) AL outfield assist leader (RF) (1999-tie) Named to Silver Slugger team (1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998) All-Star (1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997) First player to ever hit 50 HR and 50 Doubles (1995) The Sporting News Player of the Year (1995) Baseball Digest Player of the Year (1995) Led major leagues in the 1990s with 1,099 RBI Led major leagues in extra base hits in the 1990s with 711 4th player ever to have 8 straight seasons with 30 HR and 100 RBI Inducted into the Louisiana Sports Hall of Fame (June 2005) -wikipedia source
roids sadly were a factor in the 90’s – we just don’t know who? anyhow i think (disagree with though) alomar was snubbed cause of the horker. spitting on someone let alone an official is fighting times. next year though he will go… first jay cap in cooperstown
ps RIP ken caminiti – he opened a lot of ppl’s eyes with roids in mlb – openly admitted ’96 was roid year. sad to see one loose their life but thankfully he didn’t take his ghosts to the grave and really opened up the topic of hgh etc… in mlb for the better of everyone…
2010 Ford C. Frick Award – Tom Cheek 4306!
U high school kids are Idiots!!!!! I got to see The Hawk play and nonplayer was more feared in the NL than him….He should have been voted in years ago. He could have been one of the best ever if he had better knees. This guy was one of the most dominating hitters in the Pre- steroid era… He also was one of the best outfielders in the league and could steal a base with the best of them…Congrats to Andre for finally getting in….and those who disagree need to learn what the REAL credentials are for a Hall of Famer
He was a great human, great with the media, great with the community and unlike most present day players, Gave 100 percent, 100 percent of the time
How do you know he was the most feared hitter in the NL? Do you have proof of this? Do you have a link to a poll conducted by NL pitchers stating such? Or is it your own personal opinion, probably the latter. If Dawson was so “feared” why didn’t pitchers try to pitch around him more? I mean he was on some terrible Expos teams wouldn’t they pitch around him if they were so afraid, and face someone else?
Didn’t need to pitch around him. They had no pitching. Expos usually scored plenty but gave up more. When you know you’re gonna get 5 runs (especially in the 3-4 run 80’s) why give up the walk?
How do you know he was the most feared hitter in the NL? Do you have proof of this? Do you have a link to a poll conducted by NL pitchers stating such? Or is it your own personal opinion, probably the latter. If Dawson was so “feared” why didn’t pitchers try to pitch around him more? I mean he was on some terrible Expos teams wouldn’t they pitch around him if they were so afraid, and face someone else?
For those people hating on Bert and claiming that he’s simply “very good”, check out his stats compared to Glavine & Smoltz. Blylevyn’s “average” stats are all better than Glavine’s with the exception of win % and his cumulative stats trump Smoltz.
I’m simply making the comparison, because as a younger guy, these are two names (along-side Maddux who’s an obvious lock) whose names often come up in The Hall conversations for the era that I watched baseball.
I can’t say that he was “dominant” or “feared” because I never watched him play, but without a doubt, it seems like he’s getting the shaft for not being mediocre but for playing on mediocre teams and only having a modest W/L record.
(For the record, I figured K/9, BB/K, WHIP, and ERA+ to be the most important of the stats to make my comparisons)
Can’t compare across era like that. Glavine and Smoltz were each top 3 in their league a number of times. Bert was top 5 maybe 5 times if I’m charitable. Compare players against those they played against to keep it apples-to-apples.
For those people hating on Bert and claiming that he’s simply “very good”, check out his stats compared to Glavine & Smoltz. Blylevyn’s “average” stats are all better than Glavine’s with the exception of win % and his cumulative stats trump Smoltz.
I’m simply making the comparison, because as a younger guy, these are two names (along-side Maddux who’s an obvious lock) whose names often come up in The Hall conversations for the era that I watched baseball.
I can’t say that he was “dominant” or “feared” because I never watched him play, but without a doubt, it seems like he’s getting the shaft for not being mediocre but for playing on mediocre teams and only having a modest W/L record.
(For the record, I figured K/9, BB/K, WHIP, and ERA+ to be the most important of the stats to make my comparisons)
We are all aware of Dawson’s inability to take walks. But what about his power? People keep mentioning his 400+ homers as proof of power, but in reality his 400 homers are due to the fact that he has accumulated the 37th most plate appearances in MLB history. Dawson’s SLG% is 99th on the all time list among players with 5000 or more PA’s. Some players who have a higher SLG% are:
Reggie Sanders, Geoff Jenkins, Tony Clark, Ryan Klesko, and Raul Mondesi
He did steal 300+ bases, but once again that’s over 21 10,769 plate appearances. His stolen base percentage was a modest 74% for his career. He also only averaged 15 stolen bases a season for his career (and that’s only counting seasons where he has 500 PA’s or more).
Dawson was pretty good at a lot of different things, and was a great defender. Still, without the huge number of plate appearances most of his counting stats disappear and unfortunately the counting stats are what most Dawson supporters use for his defense.
Isn’t the ability to do it that long a talent those comps you mention lacked? This logic would eliminate Raines and Blyleven, too.
Here’s the point:He played for so long and ONLY accumulated those numbers. There’s nothing sensational about it all.Had he had about 100-150 more HRs and had maintained his SB ability for longer than 7 years? Then it would be something to write home about. Truth is, he had 3 seasons of 30+ HRs, and never again stole more than 20 bases after 1984, while remaining a regular player for about another 9 years. Take those three seasons away, and he hovers around 300 HRs. He’s not a power hitter. Just the product of playing for a long time.
Please defend the arbitrary disallowance of one player’s best 3 seasons and then comparing him to everyone else. It’s illogical, unrealistic, and baseless. Stripping an individual player of his best 3 seasons would eliminate Tim Raines, Edgar Martinez, Bert Blyleven, and removing 1991, ’96, and ’99 from Alomar would really push him way into borderline status.
Randomly disqualifying 3 years of actual accomplishments isn’t reasonable at all – especially in an era of wOBA and WAR, which approximate runs and wins (yes, WAR is based on hypothetical wins, not real game wins).
I’m not disqualifying them. I understand my previous comment was a bit ambiguous. I was more trying to highlight his lack of legit 30+HR power. I’m just saying that he is a product of playing for a very long time, and had only three years of over 30 HRs, which is why he’s not a legit power hitter (his career SLG is .484. That’s very good…but is it amazing? You need to be a bit over .500 for that).I also never compared him to anyone else. Because, in truth, if you want to compare him to Alomar and Blyleven, there is no comparison. Those two were far better.
Blyleven, who was never the best pitcher in his league in any season and only had maybe 5 top 5 seasons is a lock. But a player who was the best in his player in his league once and top 3 two other times is not?
No one, not even sabermatricians, question Dawson’s counting stats being HOF quality. I’m not sure how the longevity argument works for one player but not another.
Blyleven, who was never the best pitcher in his league in any season and only had maybe 5 top 5 seasons is a lock. But a player who was the best in his player in his league once and top 3 two other times is not?
No one, not even sabermatricians, question Dawson’s counting stats being HOF quality. I’m not sure how the longevity argument works for one player but not another.
“Agree on Alomar snub, though I can’t stand the guy for spitting on that umpire. He’s trash but was an outstanding player, have to give him that.”
You are basing this off of one incident? The ump has forgiven him, they are great friends and Robby contributes huge amounts of cash and time to the charity for his 2 sons illness’. Robby is a fantastic person on and off the field, get your story straight before saying so ridiculous.
I’m getting sick and tired of Blyleven getting snubbed again and again. He’s beyond the level of deserving.
I don’t understand the Blyleven love. Dude pitched for 22 years. He should have almost 300 wins and a bunch of Ks. Some people act like we’re talking about Bob Gibson, and that Jerry Royster was just elected to the HOF.
Blyleven pitched for an awful lot of crappy Twins teams over the course of his career, he was also injured a lot from that massive amount of CG’s that he threw (242) can you imagine any of today’s wimpy starter, including Halladay throwing 1/2 that many? Blyleven threw 10+ CG’s in 13 of his 22 seasons and had better than 20 3 times, just an unimaginable feat for a guy that pitched up until 1990, when large amounts of CG’s were already going by the wayside. Blyleven was a throwback to the 60’s style of pitching.. A workhorse and true Ace that took the ball on his day to pitch and finished what he started. That is why he deserves to be enshrined.
Yes, I can imagine it if today’s pitchers had the same advantages that they had. Bert was a top 5 in his league a only handful of times or less (based on IP, HR, BB, and K). He led his league in complete games exactly once. Can’t compare across era with out considering the environment.
He will get in based on longevity but I see no problem in it taking this long.
Andre Dawson was an all around player. I would not be concerned with useless stats. He was an rbi , home run guy who if he played in the steroid era would have had 600 home runs. He was a great right fielder with a gun for an arm. If you elect blyleven then you have to elect tommy john. He had almost 300 wins. How about willie davis close to 3000 hits. Same goes for Steve Garvey, Bill Buckner. Lots of borderline guys.
I can tell you why Willie Davis and Dick Allen still will get so little votes amongst the old fogies that still get to vote for HOF’ers. Know why? They refused to speak to the reporters for the most part as players, because they were constantly chastised when they did. It was a miracle that Steve Carlton, another that had a silent treatment for writers made it on his 1st year of eligibility, then a 300 game winner would have been to much i guess.
Reporters had their “fair haired boys” back then that could do no wrong and just refused to believe they could do no wrong, much like politicians of today. They would totally ignore every transgression Mickey Mantle did, every stumbling drunk binge he would get on. Most reporters would ignore Tony “C” (Conigliaro) telling his reserve commanding officer to go take a $hit in his hat and nearly having to go to Vietnam, just because he was a ball player and thought he was something special. But if the player was Willie Davis, or especially then, Dick Allen? every single thing that he did the writers could find was written about negatively and printed in the sports pages.
Dick Allen went over some of the items on mlb netwrok a few weeks ago for those of you that caught it, but let me tell you, when he was with the Phillies, his life was almost a living hel*. You can google lots of the things he was forced to go through in the “City of brotherly love” that did not exactly live up to it’s name 1 lousy bit.
The writers took care of Mantle and his crew in New York, you never heard of them doing anything bad in the press. Richie Allen was one heck of a slugger and there is no doubt that racisim was a big part of the deal. Could you imagine a guy like Dick Allen, Jimmy Wynn, Rocky Colovito, Leon Wagner and on and on if they played in the steroid ERA. every one of them would have 500 HRS.It was to bad about Conigliaro he was the youngest player to ever hit 100 home runs, he would have been a star in boston for a longtime and who knows what his numbers would have been. He died so young, what a shame.
Steroid usage occurred during the 1960s and 70s. You can’t prove that those players didn’t use them.
Look at the size of the players today, and watch tape of players playing twenty five years ago . You can see the difference. The only Player that was muscled up was a guy named brian downing who played for the angels and the white sox, The general feeling in baseball during the 60`s and70`s that being Muscled up would hurt your game, keep you from being able to hit. You have grown up onlt in a steroid ERA so you do not know the difference.
So? The size of players is attributable to this exact culture of the necessity of working out. The more you work out, the bigger you will be.
Yes, the players are super huge now because of the PED part. But that’s only because they combine PED’s with working out. If you just take PED’s and not work out you can still be skinny (i.e. the players of the 60s and 70s). The fact is that the performance-enhancing drug part still existed and players believed they needed these drugs to gain an edge, or just to be able to compete with the others who used them.
You’re saying they need steroids to hit that many home runs, whereas I’m saying it’s entirely possible that they were already on them, but rather they needed a work out mentality.
Mark McGwire got under 25% of the vote. Dawson was a much better everyday player then McGwire. McGwire was a cheater. Most of you guys quoting meaningless stats never saw Dawson play. I am sure Alomar will get in one day. The writers are sending him a message for spitting in an umpires face, give it a few years.
OBP isn’t meaningless but it’s not everything either. Dawson took this long to get in because he took the clean up role a bit too far. Sometimes it’s okay to take the walk. Had he OBP’d even .340 (less than 1 extra walk per month for him), he would have been in much earlier.
How old are you? Did you ever see him play? He was a clean up type hitter. Suprising before the steroid ERA he had big numbers. He played right field with the worst possible legs, he did not have steroids to make him heal the way McGwire did for his feet, and he had a rocket for an arm. The on base stuff is for the table setters, the speedsters. Of course the game changes every generation as does the culture but there was a time when 500 home runs was a honored number, and automatic induction in the HOF. Of course the Owners, the players and Bud Selig bastardized the game. I loved seeing Bonds, McGwire and others hitting all those homers. I also knew that players never hit for more power or pull the ball better as they age. It never happened until steroids were introduced.
Ha! Call off the dogs markjsunz. I’m one of the good guys. I’ve advocated for Dawson for a couple years now. And, yes, I saw him play. However, we can’t gloss over his low OBP as if it’s immaterial. He didn’t get in first ballot because of it. He deserves to be in but I don’t have a problem with it taking this long for it to happen.
Prehaps you are right, but the hall of fame voting is an old boy network.There is no exact science involved. There are many old timers who played in the 1920`s and 1930`s who should be in, there fetes on the playing field are lost to time. On that note I bid you a good evening.
What about amphetamines? If you label this era the “steroid era” it is more than appropriate to label Dawson’s era the “greenie era” as amphetamine use was much more rampant in the 80’s than anabolic steroids ever were. How do we know that Dawson didn’t pop a few greenies before games to keep his legs from falling off?
I am sure players with pain have taken there share of pain pills. I have a cronic conditon and have to take some. You probably know someone who takes pain pills. But coming back from the off season gaining 20 to 40 lbs. of muscle, and being able to do things on a baseball field you never did before. The two are not the same.
I love the quote “did you ever see him play?” used as a means of making other peoples judgments invalid. Did you see every hall of fame corner outfielder play, along with every other corner outfielder of his generation play on a consistent basis? If you didn’t then how is the fact that you saw Dawson play any bit useful when you can’t compare him properly to other contemporaries.
That’s why I tend to compare players within era, rather than across era. There were literally twice as many HR hit in the NL in 1998 vs 1990. You can’t compare stats equitably across era. Dawson’s best years were in the 80’s. Low offense (except for 1987). About 300 HR led the decade. Dawson had 250 in the 80’s. He averaged 60 XBH through his prime years (1978-91; age 23-36). The premier slugger of the era, Mike Schmidt averaged 66 over a similar span (1974-87; age 24-37). Dawson was elite for his time, for sure.
Just as many people say OBP isn’t the only stat that matters, home runs are not the only thing that matters either. And he was still 50 homers behind the leader of that one decade behind 4 other players.
During his era he only accumulated 56.8 WAR over 21 seasons. I mean you might as well add John Olerud to the hall of fame as he accumulated 56.6 WAR in only 17 seasons.
And as upsetting as it is that he wasn’t always healthy that doesn’t warrant his election to the hall of fame. Smoky Joe Wood and J.R. Richard would be hall of famers had they not gotten hurt, and look they aren’t in the hall of fame.
Again, a single stat won’t get you in (# of 30 HR seasons) or keep you out. It’s the complete resume. Elite power: 5th most HR in the 80’s and 400+ lifetimeElite baserunner: 300+ lifetime stealsElite fielder: 8 gold gloves (including 4 at a premium position)Plus average for a slugger: 2800 hits and almost 3500 times on baseDawson was demonstrated elite or plus in all 5 tools, period.I like WAR. WAR is valuable. But remember, it is a simulation. It approximates runs and wins rather than using actual game runs and wins. For a season or two, that’s cool. But with the number of PA’s we have for HOF candidates, real numbers can be used. Should we really be using estimated stats to make (or break) a HOF case?I put together a spreadsheet with all Hall of Famers with 300+ HRs from Dawson’s era (anyone retiring between 1980 and 2001). Rickey Henderson fell just short – 297 HRs. Here are the results.Andre Dawson / Avg HOFerSeasons: 21 / 21Games: 2627 / 2642PA: 10769 / 10806AB: 9927 / 9525Runs: 1373 / 1407Hits: 2774 / 26562B: 503 / 4813B: 98 / 62HR: 438 / 438RBI: 1591 / 1593SB: 314 / 123CS: 109 / 64SB%: 74% / 62%BB: 589 / 1104 K: 1509 / 1549K%: 15% / 17%BA: .279 / .278OBP: .323 / .354SLG: .482 / .482AllStars 8/11/10GoldGloves 8/3/1Top5 MVP 3/3/3MVP wins 1/1/1Dawson is as good or better than the typical Hall of Fame slugger of his era with one exception – walks. (OBP difference is as a result of low walks, OPS is as a result of low walks, OPS+ is as a result of low walks, wOBA is as a result of low walks, wRAA is as a result of low walks, WAR is as a result of low walks.) OK, we get that. Walks and the resulting OBP increase is important. That’s why he wasn’t first ballot. But, as shown above, there is no other logical case against him. If you want to see the spreadsheet, email me. (All stats sourced from baseball-reference.com. Primarily baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_ba…)*BTW, fangraphs does make a case for John Olerud being inducted (which I don’t really support) fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/john-o….
Some players get in because they are really great players, others get in because they were good and played forever.
This is pretty much a case of the latter.
It is kind of funny/sad that Ray Lankford has a career OPS+ higher than Dawson and yet had the same number of votes as Todd Zeile (0).
Wasn’t good enough, long enough. Longevity is huge. If a guy has the two best years in MLB history, he’s not going to be in unless the rest of the resume is respectable in HOF terms. Ask Don Mattingly. If Lankford did it as long as Dawson, he’d be in.
There are guys with more hits then Mattingly who also have not been inducted. He was a great hitter but there are other first baseman with better numbers. So yes longevity is part of it but when you also have close to 300 losses that is taken into consideration.
Additionally, OPS+ is only one measure. No single measure is adequate to qualify or disqualify a HOF candidate. OBP is the Moneyball-era flavor of the month stat. There will be plenty of stat guys clamoring to keep low UZR players out after the current defensive-era (see Tampa 2008, Seattle 2009/10, Boston 2010) gets going full steam.
JEREMY,
Are you saying that because of this one OPS stat that a Ray Lankford, or Todd Zeile deserve induction into the hall of fame? You will have to wait for this generation of sportswriters who do the voting to die out before they consider these type of stats. Blyleven lost almost as many games as he won. You do not see to many guys in the HOF with a little higher then a .500 win percentage. He had good stuff, a great curve but gets
passed up every year. You can also make a strong or stronger case for Tommy John. His numbers are a little better then Blyleven plus he came back from one of the most wicked arm injurys. He was a sort of experimented on by Dr. Jobe and Dr. Kerlan there ground breaking surgery have saved countless careers.
I’m not a huge Bert fan but his case is better than Tommy’s. Tommy hardly combined IP with quality innings to merit HOF induction. Even when the voters gave him 2nd in CY in ’77 he wasn’t top 5. In ’79 he was a top 5 performer (barely). He was overrated in ’80 CY voting, too. All-in-all, Tommy was good, not great. Bert had the innings, the K’s, the shutouts and he kept runners off base better. I believe wins for starting pitchers have more value than most stat analysts do (especially in an era w/ so many innings/start) but wins and losses are so dependent on run support and the defense and stadium behind you that you have to take them with a grain of salt.
Seriously. I can’t even fathom the struggles to understand why Blyleven should be in the HOF.
I was going to go year to year and compare his record vs his teams records but then I remembered that my holiday hiatus is over and I need to do some work. This year pretty much sums up the reason why he has 287 wins instead of 325 which he would easily have if he were on some of those power house teams of the 70’s/80’s like the Orioles, Yankees or Oakland A’s instead of the Twins, Rangers and Indians.
1972-
Bert Blyleven- 17-17, 2.73 ERA , 1.10 whip in 283 IP
Twins record- 77-77
Avg runs allowed in wins: 2.2 runs a game.
# of losses in games w/ 7 IP and less than 3 runs allowed: 10 games
Numer of quality starts: 23 of 38 starts of 7 IP and 3 runs or less
That difference lies in your personal perception. Most people I know think he’s just funny.