Baseball Hall of Fame

[dlgood]

Today, MLB announced this year's Hall of Fame class:

1. Andre Dawson

Much like last year (Jim Rice) Dawson was a very good player with a great career, but a player who wouldn't have made my list. Both were sluggers who put up nice first order stats, didn't get on base nearly enough, were overrated because of Home Run totals and favorable park effects - and who were actually less valuable then their less splashy but more well rounded outfield teammates. (Dwight Evans and Tim Raines)

Well, what's done is done. It does show that the revolution in baseball analysis still hasn't quite made it through to the old men who vote on the hall. That said, here's my ballot:

1. Roberto Alomar
2. Bert Blyleven
3. Barry Larkin
4. Edgar Martinez
5. Tim Raines
6. Alan Trammel

Blyleven and Alomar are probably locks to get in next year. Jack Morris and Mark McGwire might have a shot next year. Raines and Trammel continue to be criminally underrated. Of course, if any of these gents really want in, they'd better get cracking for 2011 and 2012 balloting. Because starting with 2013, the really big stars come up (Biggio, Clemens, Piazza) and they all go to the back of the line...

Comments

[mamculuna.livejournal.com]

I really loved Andre in the Cubs' 1989 season. He was such a cool steady guy, and they really haven't done much better since then. The crowds used to stand up and bow when he'd come on. I know personality doesn't make a great player, but I think he helped make a team.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

Indeed, I do think that's a large part of what got him in. From all I've read, Dawson is a great guy, a wonderful teammate, and a fine leader. I wouldn't have voted for him (Getting on base is the most important thing a hitter can do, and Dawson's .323 On-Base-Average is the worst of any Hall of Famer by far) but there were other strong considerations and he slots in with a number of players already in the Hall.

[cactuswatcher.livejournal.com]

I didn't mean to come in behind you and shoot down your guy. ;o)

But, Cardinal fans do look at the world differently. LOL

[mamculuna.livejournal.com]

Well, there is that! And statistics don't lie--even in 89, we were often disappointed--yet when he did come through, the feeling was a lot different from when Sosa hit one over the bleachers. He was sort of the opposite kind of player--or at least that's how he was perceived.

[cactuswatcher.livejournal.com]

I'm a little puzzled about Dawson. He seemed like the big bat no one was really afraid of. He ran pretty well, but not so well that it was a giant factor. By far his best year was with the last place Cubs in '87. He wasn't particularly outstanding in 1981 when the Expos made the playoffs or in 1989 when the Cubs made it. As you said good, but I wouldn't call him great...

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

By far his best year was with the last place Cubs in '87. He wasn't particularly outstanding in 1981 when the Expos made the playoffs

If you go by HR and RBIs, perhaps. If you're using more advanced stats (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/d/dawsoan01.shtml?redir) (On-Base Average and Slugging, and considering the difference between playing in Montreal's Olympic Stadium vs. Wrigley Field...) then actually - 1981 is his best year, and by far. (Dawson was 2nd behind Schmidt in MVP voting) He also stole 26 bases in 30 attempts in a strike shortened year.

What hurts him is that his batting average wasn't very good and he didn't take walks - which mostly means he made way too many outs. As nice a guy he was, guys who lead the league in Outs don't help their team as much as they should.

[cactuswatcher.livejournal.com]

I have to give you the difference in stadiums. But it's tough to ignore leading the league in RBIs with a bad team.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

Not really, because RBI are a really bad stat to use when evaluating individual player performance. (See below) In any case, the Cubs in 1987, were awful because their pitching (after Rick Sutcliffe) was terrible. (11th out of 12 in almost any stat you'd want to pick) I wouldn't penalize Andre Dawson because the Cubs gave 500 innings to Greg Maddux, Jamie Moyer and Les Lancaster - all of whom stunk that year.

But RBI is a notoriously team-dependent stat, and the 1987 Cubs were actually quite good on offense, particularly at the top of the order. No small amount of the credit for Dawson's RBI totals go to Jerry Mumphrey's .400 On-Base Percentage. (Look back at comparisons between Bonds and Sosa, where Sosa always had more RBI because he had better teammates who were on more often, even though Bonds hit vastly better with Runners on than Sosa did) Players can really rack up RBI when they always come up with runners on base.

In 1987 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/1987-batting-leaders.shtml), Andre Dawson was maybe the 7-10th best player in the National League. He made 463! outs. Dale Murphy was better. Jack Clark was better. Tim Raines, Darryl Strawberry, Eric Davis, Pedro Guerrerro and Tony Gwynn. They all had much better years. Dawson won the MVP that year, because he came back from a bad knee and collusion to hit 47 home runs in a Rabbit Ball year.

All things considered, if you're one of the ten best players in the league in multiple seasons, that puts you in the discussion.