Will Dawson Be Next to Get Hall’s Call

The first time I ever stood on a major league diamond, I was 12 years old and the best player in the National League was Andre Dawson. I was attending a summer camp sponsored by the Phillies, and we practiced at Veterans Stadium for a day.
I stood even with the third-base bag for one drill, and for some reason the image of Dawson came to mind: standing 90 feet away, waggling his bat in the box. It was a terrifying feeling, and I wasn’t alone in being intimidated. Dawson was once walked intentionally five times in a game.
On Monday, Dawson just missed the cut for the Hall of Fame, falling 44 votes short of the required 75 percent of ballots cast by 10-year members of the Baseball Writers’ Association of America. With 67 percent of the vote, Dawson will probably make it someday, and I hope he does.
The New York Times does not allow its writers to vote for the Hall of Fame, but if I could have sent in my ballot, I would have checked Dawson’s name – and not just because of childhood impressions.
Look at his 16-season stretch from 1977 to 1992, roughly the same era dominated on the mound by another neglected Hall candidate, Jack Morris. Dawson is the only player in that stretch to meet these relatively low statistical thresholds: 250 homers, 250 steals and 1,000 runs batted in. He won eight Gold Gloves in that span, and he did a lot of it on knees ravaged by artificial turf in Montreal.
“He went out and played all the time, even when he was hurt, which was often,” Tim Wallach, his former Expos teammate, told me in 1990. “I have a lot of respect for that. He knows that you get paid to go out there as much as possible. He always did that.”
It’s easy to look at Dawson’s .323 on-base percentage and dismiss his candidacy. Jose Cruz, Chili Davis and Brian Downing reached base more often in his era. But for 16 seasons, there was no one in baseball who ran as well as Dawson and hit for as much power – all while playing exceptional defense.
In fact, in all of baseball history, there are only two other players with 2,000 hits, 400 homers and 300 steals. You may have heard of them: Barry Bonds and Willie Mays.
E-mail This Print Share
Close Linkedin
Digg
Facebook
Mixx
My Space
Permalink Andre Dawson, Hall of Fame Related Posts From Bats John Fogerty Tells the Story Behind ‘Centerfield’Top Hall of Fame CandidatesJack Morris Talks About His Place in HistoryThe Final Word on Kevin BrownLarkin, McGriff and Other Hall of Fame Nuggets Previous Post
The Similarities Between Rickey and Manny Next Post
The Words Behind the Runs 24 Comments 1. January 12, 2009 9:25 pm
Link
During the 80’s Yankee fans in my Bronx neighborhood coveted a handful of players. We needed pitching so Morris, Saberhagen and Teddy Higuera were topped the charts.
But Dawson, Robin Yount and Alan Trammell topped the list of everyday players. Dawson delivered everything Dave Winfield offered with two big differences: no drama and delivery in the clutch.
— O Coelho 2. January 12, 2009 9:27 pm
Link
Because they only admit 2 players per year via the regular voting, there is an ever-growing pool of qualified inductees who now have virtually no chance of getting into the HoF.
There should be a major (50 tp 100 or more) immediate accession of qualified members to the Hall from the last 30 or so years.
And at least four, preferably six or eight inductees per year should be voted in from now on.
Elsewise, total membership to the Hall will continue to be biased towards players from three-quarters of a century ago or more and there will be an ever-growing pool of qualified candidates who can just never get in.
The HofF should be a living institution and not just a memorial to a particular,2009 World Baseball Classic hats sale, increasingly distant era.
— George 3. January 12, 2009 10:19 pm
Link
With all due respect to Andre Dawson and to the multitude of players who should be in the HoF and are not, there is one ommission that is so glaring it renders consideration of anyone else irrelevant until it is resolved.
I refer to a player who won two American League MVP awards, who played for seven pennant winners and three World Series winners, who was a Golden Glove right fielder, who held the single season home run record for over three decades, and who was a great sportsman and a true gentleman.
Where’s Roger Maris?
— Kenny DesPortes 4. January 12, 2009 11:41 pm
Link
Thank you, Kenny. You make my point precisely!
There are far too few “modern era” greats who are likely to be denied admission to the Hall even as obscure players from the “early era” continue to have plaques displaying mediocre stats.
Without a doubt, Roger Maris should be in the Hall. That he isn’t is both a travesty to greatness and an indictment of how antiquated election to the Hall is conducted.
— George 5. January 13, 2009 12:20 am
Link
Right on, George.
I should add that Roger still holds the single season unassisted by PEDs home run record.
— Kenny DesPortes 6. January 13, 2009 12:35 am
Link
I do not understand why a player like Ricky Henderson did not receive a 100% Hall of Fame vote.
What didn’t Henderson do on the playing field for a Hall of Fame voter to not vote him in. I would love to know the reasoning why 5% (approx.) of the voters decided that Henderson does not belong in the Hall of Fame? Maybe they don’t watch baseball??
— Reed Resnikoff 7. January 13, 2009 1:04 am
Link
George –
FWIW, there’s no limit on the number of players who can be voted in by the writers in any given year; if you get 75%, you’re in. It is unusual for more than two to get in. It happened three of the first four years, but only seven times since:
‘36 (Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Christy Mathewson, Walter Johnson)
‘37 (Nap Lajoie, Tris Speaker, Cy Young)
‘39 (George Sisler, Eddie Collins, Willie Keeler)
‘47 (Carl Hubbell, Frankie Frisch, Mickey Cochrane, Lefty Grove)
‘54 (Rabbit Maranville, Bill Dickey, Bill Terry)
‘55 (Joe DiMaggio, Ted Lyons, Dazzy Vance, Gabby Hartnett)
‘72 (Sandy Koufax, Yogi Berra, Eary Wynn)
‘84 (Luis Aparicio, Harmon Killebrew, Don Drysdale)
‘91 (Rod Carew, Gaylord Perry, Ferguson Jenkins)
‘99 (Nolan Ryan, George Brett, Robin Yount)
The notion that the Hall “continue(s) to be biased towards players from three-quarters of a century ago or more” is perverse in the extreme – just look at the list of members – but it’s surpassed by the suggestion that there might be 50 (to say nothing of 100) well-qualified players from the last 30 years who are not in. I’m hard-pressed to name a dozen, particularly if we exclude, as we should,Arizona Diamondbacks Hats sale, the Bert Blylevens, Andre Dawsons, et al who remain eligible to be chosen in the future. That the standards are inarguably and inexorably falling (incredibly, DiMaggio was not a first-ballot guy, and yet Rickey Henderson got in with more than 90 percent of the vote,Metal Mulisha Hats Sale, rightly, in my view), and not that, say, who? Ron Guidry? Dwight Evans? remain on the outside looking in, probably forever, is what we should be lamenting.
It’s the Hall of Fame. It SHOULD be about history and excellence.
— David 8. January 13, 2009 2:25 am
Link
Dawson’s candidacy is not as simple as you make out. I’m not sure what year you were 12, but I’m sure that Dawson was not the best player in the National League that year, because he never was that – even for one year. From 1976 though 1987, Mike Schmidt was a better player than Dawson, every single year,Colorado Rockies Hats sale, without exception. In 1988 and 1989 Will Clark was a better player, among many others. From 1990 through the end of his career, many many players were better each year, particularly Barry Bonds.
Dawson may have been intentionally walked five times in one game, but he was walked intentionally overall 143 times in his career – once more than Jose Cruz, once fewer than Garry Templeton, and 50 times fewer than Rusty Staub.
The combination of the home runs and the stolen bases is interesting, but not particularly revealing of Hall of Fame worthiness. The 250 – 250 standard is particularly unenlightening, as neither side is a particularly significant total, but achieving the combination is very rare for any time period. Bobby Bonds, for example, was the only player from 1968 through 1981 to meet the 250 home runs, 250 stolen bases, and 1,000 RBI levels, but he never drew as many as 11 percent of the Hall of Fame vote.
He topped 30 home runs only three times in his career, and stole 30 bases three times. Howard Johnson topped 30 home runs three times, and stole 30 bases four times.
I think that Dawson was a good player, but often overrated (especially during his Cubs years). His .323 OBP was awful. He was not a hall of fame quality player.
— Bryan 9. January 13, 2009 2:37 am
Link
Roger Maris Career Numbers: 275 HR, 851 RBI, .260 BA, .345 OBP, .476 SLG.
Bob Allison Career Numbers: 256 HR, 795 RBI, .255 BA, .358 OBP, 471 SLG.
Norm Cash Career Numbers: 377 HR, 1103 RBI, .271 BA, .374 OBP, .488 SLG.
If Roger Maris should be in the Hall of Fame, he should be joined by Bob Allison, who was every bit his equal, and Norm Cash, who was a far superior player. Cash and Allison’s careers were contemporary to Maris, with Maris starting in 1957 and Allison and Cash in 1958.
— Bryan 10. January 13, 2009 8:45 am
Link
Bryan — I’ll stand by what I wrote, but you make some very good points with some nice research. I was 12 in 1987, when Andre Dawson was the MVP of the National League.
— Tyler Kepner 11. January 13, 2009 9:16 am
Link
The biggest oversight continues to be Bert Blyleven. He had 287 wins and 60 shutouts while pitching for mediocre clubs. For some reason, there is a subset of the writers that continue to overlook him. I would like to know why a writer doesn’t think Blyleven is not worthy.
How can someone like Mussina entertain HoF thoughts if Blyleven is excluded?
— John 12. January 13, 2009 9:23 am
Link
David,
Well we clearly disagree. I certainly think there are at least 50 to 100 HoF’ers from the last 30 years who will never gain admittance. See some of the players noted above such as Norm Cash and Bob Allison.
Have you ever been to the Hall? It is a fine museum – but that’s part of the problem. Most of the displays relate to the early years and leave one thinking that baseball ground to a halt at the end of the 1930’s.
Baseball afficiandos may revel in the obscurity of the early years and the players of that era. That is all well and good – but if the Hall is a monument to a continuing professional sport – it risks becoming irrelevant to future generations who have no connection to the game as it was played in the first half of the 20th C.
Time inevitably marches on – and the Hall needs to honor more players from more recent decades.
— George 13. January 13, 2009 9:38 am
Link
Jim Rice was a one-dimensional player, all bat and no glove. If you let Rice in then Dawson must be next. Andre Dawson won 8 Gold Gloves to Rice’s zero. Dawson played on Astro Turf most of his career while Rice played in the cozy confines of Fenway Park. Dawson was twice the player Rice was. The HOF result just illustrates the fact that most sports writers never played the game and as a result don’t have a clue as to how to tell a great player like Dawson from a merely good one like Rice.
— Colin 14. January 13, 2009 10:26 am
Link
If you look at Roger Maris’ career stats, they are not outstanding. But I think that by his contributions to the teams he played for, and especially breaking Babe Ruth’s record, which no one thought would ever be broken, is enough for him to get in. Without his 1961 season, no way, but that season earned him a place in baseball immortality, and the Hall should recognize that. By the way, if you haven’t already seen it, check out the movie 61*. It chronicles the 1961 Yankees when Maris and Mantle were chasing Ruth’s record, and it shows all Maris had to put up with. They are played by Barry Pepper and Thomas Jane, Billy Crystal directs.
— Kevin 15. January 13, 2009 11:43 am
Link
What defines “one-dimensional” in a player? If a pitcher was dominant but not known for fielding, is he one-dimensional? Should that have kept Nolan Ryan out because he never won a Gold Glove?
Rice wasn’t an exceptional fielder, but he was an all-tool hitter with an unmatched bat speed. He hit .300 or better seven times and had 200+ hits four times, a significant achievement even for a Fenway player, let alone a slugger.
I’d vote for the Hawk if I could, and I wish Hall voters would take defense into account. Still, I can’t understand what took so long for Rice. For a decade — not for a couple of years — he struck fear in American League pitching like no other hitter. Ask Goose Gossage. It seems to me that some of these Hall voters who rely solely on the career numbers simply never saw Rice play. Were these same people to vote on Sandy Koufax without having witnessed him play, they’d see a pitcher who fell far short of 300 career wins and 3,000 Ks and who had a .500-or-below record in four of his 12 seasons. You’ve got to look past the numbers and ask yourself: Did this player dominate? In Rice’s case, the answer is a resounding “yes.”
While I understand how Rice was debatable, for the life of me I cannot figure out why 28 writers left Rickey off their ballots. The notion that no player should be enshrined on his first year of eligibility is silly; that’s why players must wait five years, and this natural holding pattern has worked perfectly in McGwire’s case.
Rickey should have been a unanimous choice simply because of his thighs; on the basepaths, he looked like a top-of-the-food-chain predator and behaved like one.
Those who failed to vote for him — and those who voted for Jay Bell or Jesse Orosco — should be treated like drunk drivers: their ability to vote should be suspended and permanently revoked for a repeat offense.
— JD 16. January 13, 2009 12:48 pm
Link
28 writers left Rickey off the ballot likely for the same reasons that writers left Ty Cobb or Babe Ruth off their ballots at the time. Either the writer didn’t personally like the player, or the writer feels that if those above players did not merit 100% votes, then nobody should. In Rickey’s case, where the stats speak for themselves, it is likely the latter.
IMO, neither Rice nor Dawson are HOF worthy. Neither is Blyleven, Don Sutton, Bruce Sutter, etc.
Watching Barry Larkin on MLB network yesterday made me feel uncomfortable. He really thinks he has a chance to get voted in. He’s going to be disappointed.
— Mike 17. January 13, 2009 12:49 pm
Link
One more thing:
Roger Maris is already in the Hall Of Fame, in the exhibits they have that celebrate singular achievements. He does not merit a plaque in the Hall of Heroes (or whatever they call it),The Hundreds Hats Sale, which celebrates the entirety of a player’s career and accomplishments.
— Mike 18. January 13, 2009 2:36 pm
Link
If Rice should be kept out of the Hall because his glove was not extraordinary (and he was not a bad fielder for most of his career) then shouldn’t all pitchers be kept out if they don’t hit well? A player’s value should be determined by examining the total value they brought to their teams, not by looking at each category of play and evaluating it separately. Babe Ruth was a notoriously bad baserunner, even getting thrown out trying to steal to end the world series one year. For the years we have statistics on, he stole 110 bases and was thrown out 113 times,Baltimore Orioles Hats sale, including 21 times in 1923, and he was among the top ten in caught steal five times. (To compare, Tim Raines was caught stealing 146 times in his career, but stole over 800 bases). That doesn’t mean Ruth doesn’t belong in the Hall of Fame – his skills as a hitter and pitcher overwhelmed his deficiencies as a baserunner and a fielder.
Tyler – Dawson had a good year in 1987, but it wasn’t his best year, and many other players were better that year as well. Dawson his .287, 49 HR, .568 SLG, and .328 OBP. Dale Murphy hit .295, 44 HR, .580 SLG, and .417 OBP. Will Clark, Jack Clark, Darryl Strawberry, Tony Gwynn, Tim Raines, Mike Schmidt – any of these guys were better than Dawson in 1987. I’m a little touchy about the NL 1987 MVP vote – I was 17, following the game very closely, and was rooting for Murphy to win his third MVP award. I was quite outraged at the time.
Best,
Bryan
— Bryan 19. January 13, 2009 2:46 pm
Link
One more on Maris -
It’s wasn’t inconceivable that Ruth’s home run record would be broken. Foxx and Greenberg had each come within 2 home runs of the record, Hack Wilson was just 4 off, and Ralph Kiner had hit as many as 54 home runs. In fact, in the 15 years preceding Maris, 5 times players had topped 50 home runs in a single season. 61 was a great achievement, but it didn’t break an unbreakable record.
— Bryan 20. January 13, 2009 9:32 pm
Link
I thought Andre Dawson was chosen MVP in 1987 for his offensive output and it is a fine record. But I am a believer that each season plays out in its own fashion where sometimes it deservingly goes to someone with the best numbers, sometimes to a person who is a team’s MVP by virtue of a host of reasons, offensive, defensive and intangibles, e.g. Kirk Gibson. In 1987,Apparel Sale, I thought Ozzie Smith was the most deserving of the MVP. For the record, I am an AL fan, first and foremost.
— Roger 21. January 16, 2009 10:34 am
Link
Regarding Rice vs. Dawson: Check out these data on performing in top 5 in league in these key offensive categories and number of times each led their league in.
LED league:
TB Hits Runs HR Ave RBI OBP SLG
RICE 4 1 0 3 0 2 1 2
HAWK 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
In TOP 5 in league:
Rice 5 5 4 5 4 7 4 5
Hawk 5 4 4 4 2 2 2 3
Combined, Rice was in top 5 performer 39 times, Hawk only 26, despite playing more seasons, and Rice led a category 13 times vs. Hawk’s 4 times. I think Rice has a stronger case, and his FP was just a point below league average whereas Hawk’s was a few pts above it. (I’m wary of Gold Gloves given influence of “reputation.”) I was a serious baseball fan during their hey-days,cheap Washington Nationals Hats, and I think Hawk was respected more but Rice was indeed “feared” more as a hitter. As a strong index of this, consider MVP voting: Each won one, but Rice finished in top 5 MVP balloting 5 other times, Dawson only twice. Career BA, .298 vs. .279. Rice wins big.
— Chris 22. January 17, 2009 7:18 pm
Link
If we want to elect Andre Dawson AFTER we elect Tim Raines, okay.
But creating an emotional impression based on one game when Andre got 5 IBB is bad reasoning. As Bryan notes above, that was hardly typical. .323 OBP was typical. This “5 IBB” reasoning is the kind of thing that made people believe Jim Rice’s middle name was “Fear” and that makes people believe, based on one game, that Jack Morris (5% below league average ERA) was close in achievement to Bert Blyleven (18% below league average ERA).
Andre’s walking game was 16 innings, and 3 of the IBB came in extra innings. Since 1956, there have been 65 games in which a player was given 3 IBB — more than to Dawson — in the regulation 9 innings. Dawson ranks no higher than 66th. It is a great distortion to propose that this one 16-inning game establishes something.
— David in Toledo 23. January 22, 2009 4:59 pm
Link
You must remember that the HOF voters are sports writers. These are not the brightest flowers in the bouquet. To expect good judgement from such a group is fatuous. Be happy that all of this HOF talk keeps baseball and some baseball players alive. Even to be mentioned yearly as a candidate like the wonderful Andre Dawson is a sort of baseball imortality. Andre Dawson may never make the HOF but each year he has been getting a lot of ink and a lot of people remember him.
— c. perry 24. April 24,Cheap Scarves, 2009 1:11 pm
Link
As I remember,Racing Hats, Dawson was a Winfield-type package: just a ton of athleticism, bolt-action arm, absolutely crushed pitches. Used his size superbly well, as Winfield did. I only saw him play in person a few times, after he came to the Red Sox to finish out the string. Remember him holding a runner on second with a throw to third that looked like a cruise missile. It was then and there that I gave up the notion, which I’d entertained all my life, that I have a pretty good arm. HoF caliber? I’ll leave that to the unmitigated geniuses of the MLBBWA, who denied Rickey Henderson (RICKEY HENDERSON!) a unanimous first-ballot induction.
— harry Add your comments...
Your Name Required
Your E-mail Required, will not be published
Your Comment
Comments are ################## and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Search This Blog
相关的主题文章：


http://www.energy-networks.net/user/...ut-your-shoes/

http://www.mequam.com/user/blogs/vie...uring-the-nba/

http://www.sundayschoolteachernetwor...royal-yet-anot

http://www.gordumgecirdim.com/Darnell9521/611224/Puma+Suede+Mid+Velcro+%26amp%3B%238211%3B+October+ 2010.html

http://daterspot.com/blogs/246/6891/...t-angels-hotel