Andre "the Hawk" Dawson was voted into the Hall of Fame yesterday, on his 9th try. I think #9 was a little too long. This guy was probably the most feared and powerful hitter from 1985 through 1989. And he had a wonderful career with the Expos and Cubs. He was also a great fielder.
However, the more news-worthy topic is the snubs (as always with the hall of fame). Robby Alomar barely missed enshrinement. I am not disappointed. I know he will get in, but I agree that he is not a first ballot hall of famer.
Also Bert Blylven missed by about 5 votes. I truly thought this was his year. But alas, it was not. I think Bert deserves this honor. He has 2 trys left.
Guys like Jack Morris, Lee Smith, and Tim Raines keep hanging around, but are not getting high enough scores to make me think any of them will get in. In my opinion, they should not be in ever.
As always, there is plenty of rumor, tension, speculation, disappointment, and complaining for the hall of fame voting. Gotta love democracy. And you gotta hate Bud Selig.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
1) With respect to Andre Dawson, I find his HOF credentials to be marginally deserving. He now has the lowest OBP of any member of the HOF, "beating" Lou Brock by 0.020 (.343 to .323). A .323 OBP? That's pretty horrible.
Additionally, although the totality of his stats put him among the ranks of Hall of Famers, you arbitrarily selected the 1985-1989 time period. I ran the numbers of all eligible major leaguers with at least 2500 plate appearances over that five-season period and found the following:
-Dawson ranked fifth in HR with 137, behind Darryl Strawberry (163), Dale Murphy (154), George Bell (148) and Glenn Davis (142);
-Dawson ranked sixth in RBI with 462, behind Don Mattingly (574), George Bell (538), Dwight Evans (509), Kirby Puckett (475) and Eddie Murray (471); however
-In the category of OPS+, an index that measures overall productivity relative to the league average, Dawson ranked 27th, with an OPS+ of 124. This number means that he was 24% better than league average. In my mind, therefore, the claim that Dawson was "the most feared and powerful hitter from 1985 through 1989" doesn't ring exactly true.
2) The Alomar snub is inexplicable and I fail to see how you find him to be an unworthy first-ballot HOF'er. From 1950-2003, only 10 second basemen qualified as having an OPS+ of 110 or greater.
Among those ten players, Alomar ranks first in hits (2659), second in doubles (498), second in triples (78), seventh in HR (206), second in RBI (1110), third in AVG (.301), fourth in OBP (.372), fifth in SLG (.444), fifth in OPS (.816) and fifth in OPS+ (117).
We're talking about 54 seasons worth of data here. He ranked as no worse than the fifth-best offensive second baseman of the past 50+ seasons and unquestionably the best defensive second baseman over that same period.
To think that Alomar isn't a first-ballot HOF'er is insanity in my opinion.
FYI - All stats courtesy of the incredible (but subscription only) Play Index Season Finder stat compiling feature on Baseball-Reference.com.
Best site ever.
I know that the numbers only slightly prove my point. But as an avid baseball fan who developed a love for the game in the mid-80s, when i was a young lad, I remember the players. And in the mid-80s, from like 1985 through 1989, there were three hitters you didnt want to face no matter what the situation was. George Bell, Andre Dawson, and Dale Murphy. They were the cream of the crop. It was a different era in terms of offensive #s, but they were the Pujols, Ryan Howard and A-Rod of the mid-80s. Andrew Dawson had the best career of the three from that time, and was the best fielder. I don't claim that he was one of the greatest outfielders ever or anything like that, but he was clearly hall-worthy.
As far as Alomar, he did revolutionize the second base position to what it is today. Aside from Mazeroski, he is the best fielding 2nd baseman ever. And he is up there as best offensively, with Joe Morgan, Rogers Hornsby, and Jeff Kent.
However, Robby Alomar's spitting in the face of an ump makes him fall very far in mind. I still think he is hall-worthy, but that act makes me lose a lot of respect for him and makes me say he shouldnt be considered among the greatest of the greats (i.e. a 1st ballot hall of famer). That black mark on his record is significant. Even when he was an Indian, I held it against him.
- I also don't think Dawson was the "most feared" hitter of the late 80s, but he was certainly among the most complete outfielders of his day. He was a true five-tool player and, in my opinion, absolutely deserves enshrinement. He's not the most automatic lock for the Hall, but by no means are his credentials "marginal". In any event, once Jim Rice went in, there was no reasonable way to keep Dawson out.
- Alomar's absolutely a first-ballot HOFer. That he was denied entry is unconscionable. The spitting incident should have zero impact on the balloting. Oh, and Laz, you forgot another top 2B on offense and defense: Ryne Sandberg, who belongs in every discussion about the best second basemen ever.
- Raines still has a chance, because (a) he took a significant leap this year, and (b) he has 11-12 more tries on the ballot. That's a lot of time, but then again he has a lot of ground to make up. Morris has four more years, and while normally I'd give him a shot at making up the remaining 23% (he had 52% this year), I don't think he'll make it. The 2013 ballot is loaded with some of the biggest names of the "Steroids Era" (Bonds, Clemens, Sosa - along with Piazza) - and I think Morris will get lost in the hubbub. So unless he gets in by 2012, which I don't expect, I think Morris is left out.
- Lee Smith has no chance. He's stagnated in the mid-40s.
- Speaking of 2011: Alomar and Blyleven will get selected. First-ballot guys will feature Bagwell (eventual HOFer, but not right away), Palmeiro (no chance, at least not now), and Juan Gonzalez (probably not a HOFer). Expect to see Barry Larkin move up from 51% to 60%+, with Bagwell and Morris not too far behind him. Also watch to see if Raines keeps moving up, and if there's any movement on Edgar Martinez and Fred McGriff (this year's other marquee first-ballot guys).
- In 2012, there are no good candidates coming onto the ballot. Expect only Larkin to win election that year; Morris will fall short; Bagwell might possibly make it (have to see where his balloting starts in 2011), but more likely he'll wait until 2015 or later; and continue to watch what happens to Raines, Edgar, and Crime Dog.
- 2013: All bets are off.
1) I can statistically prove that Andre Dawson and Dale Murphy are the same player over the most productive 13-year stretch of their careers ('79-'91):
Murphy: .269/.353/.478 126 OPS+, 371 HR, 1150 RBI, 1934 H, 1117 R
Dawson: .285/.330/.497 126 OPS+, 333 HR, 1191 RBI, 2032 H, 1042 R
Basically a wash. The OPS+ comes out the same but Dawson's value is derived from a higher slugging percentage while Murphy's is derived from a higher on-base percentage. wOBA would tell us that Murphy was the slightly more valuable player here because getting on base is more important than the total number of bases you generate.
In effect, Murphy and Dawson are nearly statistically equivalent players and that apart from Dawson's advantage in SB's, there is nothing he did that Murphy couldn't do. Two more gold gloves for Dawson (7 to 5), one more MVP for Murphy (2 to 1). Dawson played 21 seasons (Murphy played 18) so we're not looking at skewed sample size of one player playing for much longer than another. Are Dawson's SB's a good enough reason for him to be in the HOF? Potentially, yes. But Murphy's lack of SB's isn't enough to preclude him from the HOF given that he was a cleanup hitter.
2) Sptting on an ump isn't a good enough reason to keep Alomar out of the Hall of Fame on the first ballot. It may be a rationale used by some of the voters yesterday but it's not a good enough reason. Ty Cobb was a racist. Mickey Mantle was a drunken wife-beater. Are those character flaws not as bad -- if not worse -- than spitting on an ump and then apologizing for it?
@Hitman - I don't see where Jim Rice's entrance would impact overwhelmingly impact Dawson's. Rice appears to be his statistical superior in every way, other than counting stats. Considering Dawson played seven more seasons than Rice, the disparity in counting stats is not surprising.
Rice: .298/.352/.502, 128 OPS+, .375 wOBA
Dawson: .279/.323/.482, 119 OPS+, .352 wOBA
Counting stats are obviously important and not to be ignored but considering Rice and Dawson hit HR's at the same rate (approximately 22:1 AB/HR), it's safe to say that had Rice played as long as Dawson, he'd have surpassed him in most of those counting stats as well.
Dawson would have Rice beat on SB's and defensive play but each only won one MVP, with Rice gaining 8 appearances on the ballot (Dawson 9), but Rice finished in the top-5 six of those times, compared to only three for Dawson.
It looks to me like Rice was the more dominant and more potent offensive player. Defense clearly counts for something and that may well be what helped Dawson make the hall. I submit that had Dawson been as bad in the field as Rice was, he'd have never made the hall at all.
It should be pointed out that I'm not arguing that Dawson isn't a Hall of Famer, merely that he's probably not among the top 10-20 players to play his position in baseball history.
I ran a survey of all players in the Hall of Fame from 1871-2009 that played at least 1000 games in RF, had an OPS+ of 90 or greater and at least 3000 plate appearances and found 21 names. Of those names, Dawson only cracked the top 10 in HR/RBI (7th in both of those categories). 13/21 in hits, 13/21 in runs created, 20/21 in AVG, 18/21 in OPS, 19/21 in OPS+.
I ran the same survey for all Hall of Famers from 1950-2009 and Dawson ranked never came in higher than 4th out of 8 names in any category but SB's.
He's a Hall of Famer, but he kinda squeaks into the HOF. There's no shame in that. We should all be so lucky.
I'm not saying which of Rice or Dawson was the better candidate, nor do I really care. But given their simultaneous appearances on the HOF ballot, similar raw numbers, and what I think is the usual voting pattern/philosophy of the BBWAA - once Rice made it in, it was tough to keep Dawson out, given that he was already getting a majority of the votes. In other words, a voter who'd voted for Rice but not Dawson would have to look themselves in the mirror and try to explain a difference between the two players that the majority of voters didn't see.
Contrast that with Murphy, who has been so low in the voting that voters aren't being challenged to explain why Murphy is different from Dawson or Rice. I suppose that Dawson's election could spur some closer analysis of Murphy, but he is so far down that I don't expect it. His name isn't anywhere in the media coverage of the balloting.
I will have to say that I am completed amazed that Barry Larkin did not make it in. He was by far the best SS in his time period and should definitely be deserving of a HOF nod. In my opinion, both Larkin and Alomar should have gotten the nod and Dawson should have kept on the not good enough list.
Post a Comment