01-13-2009, 10:41 AM
<!--quoteo(post=11182:date=Jan 13 2009, 08:29 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jan 13 2009, 08:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->-Andre Dawson is a borderline HOF player. To put his career in the context of when he played, OPS+ becomes very handy, as it measures his OPS vs. the league average. Dawson's career OPS is 119. Which makes him very good, but sort of diminishes the argument that he towered over guys playing at the same time. Now OPS+ is obviously not the ONLY criteria you would use, and Dawson has many other stats which make him Hall worthy, but leaving him out does not seem to me to be a crime, like leaving Santo out is.
-IMO, Rice was borderline as well. Tom is right that he was awesome for a 3 year period, but that isn't necessarily enough. Dale Murphy was the best player in baseball for at least a couple years, and from 82-87 was pretty much out of his head, while playing a gold glove level Center Field. And there isn't a huge cry for him to make it (maybe there should be?).
-Pete Rose should be banned from baseball for life, because he broke the ONE rule that can ban you from baseball for life. He was aware of that rule when he bet, and deserves the punishment he has received. If a consequence of being banned from baseball is the fact that he is also banned from the HOF, then so be it.
-Not voting for Rickey Henderson for the HOF should mean you are no longer able to vote. Period.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
the difference between rice and murphy is that murphy sucked for quite a while, then was real good for 4 or 5 years, and then sucked again. rice was good, then great, then good, and then great again. he had a renassance after a couple bad years.
in their primes, they were both great, but rice was able to do it again, where murphy wasn't.
in the end, i don't think rice, murphy, or dawson should be in, but of the three, i'd have voted for dawson first, because he maintained a level of goodness for a longer period of time. longevity should count for something.
-IMO, Rice was borderline as well. Tom is right that he was awesome for a 3 year period, but that isn't necessarily enough. Dale Murphy was the best player in baseball for at least a couple years, and from 82-87 was pretty much out of his head, while playing a gold glove level Center Field. And there isn't a huge cry for him to make it (maybe there should be?).
-Pete Rose should be banned from baseball for life, because he broke the ONE rule that can ban you from baseball for life. He was aware of that rule when he bet, and deserves the punishment he has received. If a consequence of being banned from baseball is the fact that he is also banned from the HOF, then so be it.
-Not voting for Rickey Henderson for the HOF should mean you are no longer able to vote. Period.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
the difference between rice and murphy is that murphy sucked for quite a while, then was real good for 4 or 5 years, and then sucked again. rice was good, then great, then good, and then great again. he had a renassance after a couple bad years.
in their primes, they were both great, but rice was able to do it again, where murphy wasn't.
in the end, i don't think rice, murphy, or dawson should be in, but of the three, i'd have voted for dawson first, because he maintained a level of goodness for a longer period of time. longevity should count for something.
Wang.