01-07-2010, 09:34 AM
<!--quoteo(post=74432:date=Jan 7 2010, 06:49 AM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Jan 7 2010, 06:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=74423:date=Jan 6 2010, 11:30 PM:name=CFOrfan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CFOrfan @ Jan 6 2010, 11:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Rob Neyer wrote one of the worst articles ever.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->Andre Dawson. In his first four appearances on the ballot, he was considered a Hall of Famer by roughly half the electorate. That number rose to two-thirds of the electorate in the past two elections. And this time around, he jumped from 67 percent to 78 percent. Because, you know, he hit all those home runs in 2009.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Kidding. But Dawson did finish his career with a .323 on-base percentage, which means he's wrested the title Hall of Fame Outfielder With the Worst OBP away from Lou Brock ... and it wasn't much of a battle, as Brock's OBP is 20 points higher than Dawson's.
This bothers pointy-headed nerds like me. It did not bother most Hall of Fame voters, who chose instead to focus on his eight Gold Gloves, his MVP award in 1987 and the dynamic power/speed blend that typified Dawson's five best seasons. I wouldn't have voted for Dawson, but his career does (roughly speaking) fall in line with the Hall's historical standards.<b> I mean, he wasn't anything like as good as Tim Raines, but that's an argument for another day.</b> Raines got only 30 percent and deserved better (but at least he's moving up). Alan Trammell got just 22 percent, and deserved much better (he moved up, too, but just slightly).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/i...-one-we-thought
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rob ignores the fact that nobody - NOBODY - gave a whoop about OBP in Dawson's time. it simply wasn't part of the strategy. You went up to the plate to swing; guys who had a high OBP had it because that just happened to be a part of their approach at the plate. How can we say that Dawson's OBP wouldn't be much higher if he were playing today?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Posnanski addresses this very point in a totally obtuse manner. I like Neyer and Pos but on the subject of Dawson, they're both being douches.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->*It has been hinted that Dawson -- had he known that on-base percentage would become the statistic du jour -- would have gotten on base more. I wish I could buy that, but I can't. There was never a time in baseball history that making outs was considered good (except in sacrifice situations). A big part of the job has always been to not make outs. And Dawson made lots of outs.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Hawk didn't make a lot of outs because making a lot of outs was deemed good. He made a lot of outs because he was expected to swing away with RISP.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->Andre Dawson. In his first four appearances on the ballot, he was considered a Hall of Famer by roughly half the electorate. That number rose to two-thirds of the electorate in the past two elections. And this time around, he jumped from 67 percent to 78 percent. Because, you know, he hit all those home runs in 2009.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Kidding. But Dawson did finish his career with a .323 on-base percentage, which means he's wrested the title Hall of Fame Outfielder With the Worst OBP away from Lou Brock ... and it wasn't much of a battle, as Brock's OBP is 20 points higher than Dawson's.
This bothers pointy-headed nerds like me. It did not bother most Hall of Fame voters, who chose instead to focus on his eight Gold Gloves, his MVP award in 1987 and the dynamic power/speed blend that typified Dawson's five best seasons. I wouldn't have voted for Dawson, but his career does (roughly speaking) fall in line with the Hall's historical standards.<b> I mean, he wasn't anything like as good as Tim Raines, but that's an argument for another day.</b> Raines got only 30 percent and deserved better (but at least he's moving up). Alan Trammell got just 22 percent, and deserved much better (he moved up, too, but just slightly).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/i...-one-we-thought
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rob ignores the fact that nobody - NOBODY - gave a whoop about OBP in Dawson's time. it simply wasn't part of the strategy. You went up to the plate to swing; guys who had a high OBP had it because that just happened to be a part of their approach at the plate. How can we say that Dawson's OBP wouldn't be much higher if he were playing today?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Posnanski addresses this very point in a totally obtuse manner. I like Neyer and Pos but on the subject of Dawson, they're both being douches.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->*It has been hinted that Dawson -- had he known that on-base percentage would become the statistic du jour -- would have gotten on base more. I wish I could buy that, but I can't. There was never a time in baseball history that making outs was considered good (except in sacrifice situations). A big part of the job has always been to not make outs. And Dawson made lots of outs.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Hawk didn't make a lot of outs because making a lot of outs was deemed good. He made a lot of outs because he was expected to swing away with RISP.