Posts: 1,720
Threads: 41
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--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-->
IIRC, Dawson said in a recent interview that he would have taken more walks if that is what the team wanted him to do...but he was paid to drive in runs.
Posts: 8,024
Threads: 100
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--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.
Posts: 209
Threads: 2
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=74435:date=Jan 7 2010, 07:34 AM:name=jstraw)-->QUOTE (jstraw @ Jan 7 2010, 07:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wish more players did this today. There are a lot of stat hounds who compile worthless walks when swinging and putting the ball in play would give their team a better chance of scoring runs than letting the next guy try.
That said, a good arguement can be made for Tim Raines, but it probably ends up being a lowest common denominator type arguement - one that I'd vote against.
Raines will probably be the best leadoff hitter to never make the HOF. That's acceptable to me. I'd put him with guys like Jim Rice in the Hall of Awfully Good, but Not Quite Great, if such a place exists. If the HOF wasnt' watered down, I'd probably take a big handful of guys currently in and move them there too. And it would open up a spot for guys like Blyleven and many more...
Posts: 2,911
Threads: 67
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
I think Raines was fantastic and an amazing leadoff hitter. I'd vote for him if I had a vote. I would have also voted for Dawson. Both are great and both are border line HOFers (just over the bar) IMHO.
Posts: 8,024
Threads: 100
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=74442:date=Jan 7 2010, 08:19 AM:name=Coldneck)-->QUOTE (Coldneck @ Jan 7 2010, 08:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I think Raines was fantastic and an amazing leadoff hitter. I'd vote for him if I had a vote. I would have also voted for Dawson. Both are great and both are border line HOFers (just over the bar) IMHO.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
400+/300+/8/1 (homers/stolen bases/gold gloves/mvp) is not just over the bar, in my view.
Posts: 14,113
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
I've gone back and forth on this over the years, but in the end I think Raines is borderline, but deserving. Let's not forget how much leadoff men were highly valued in that era, and Raines was one of the elites of his day. Had he played for the Yanks (in his prime) or Red Sox, there would be no doubt he'd be in there.
Posts: 2,647
Threads: 75
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=74449:date=Jan 7 2010, 08:11 AM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Jan 7 2010, 08:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I've gone back and forth on this over the years, but in the end I think Raines is borderline, but deserving. Let's not forget how much leadoff men were highly valued in that era, and Raines was one of the elites of his day. Had he played for the Yanks (in his prime) or Red Sox, there would be no doubt he'd be in there.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Definitely agree. I always loved watching him play growing up
Posts: 4,684
Threads: 78
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=74400:date=Jan 6 2010, 07:35 PM:name=Runnys)-->QUOTE (Runnys @ Jan 6 2010, 07:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Veryzer...just curious, what is your rationale behind Blyleven not being a HOFer?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Blyleven pitched in a pitcher friendly era and never dominated at any point in his career. Never lead the league in wins, never lead the league in ERA, only lead the league once in strike outs and complete games. He was a solid pitcher but not even in the top ten of his era and maybe not even in the top 20 (though I'd have to look that up to be sure). No way he belongs.
And I realize that wins/losses are a "team stat" but the fact of the matter is, the great pitchers win games. Blyleven won a lot of games, but he lost nearly as many, and as an old timer, i have to count that against him.
Wang.
Posts: 2,911
Threads: 67
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=74454:date=Jan 7 2010, 11:16 AM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Jan 7 2010, 11:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=74400:date=Jan 6 2010, 07:35 PM:name=Runnys)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runnys @ Jan 6 2010, 07:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Veryzer...just curious, what is your rationale behind Blyleven not being a HOFer?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Blyleven pitched in a pitcher friendly era and never dominated at any point in his career. Never lead the league in wins, never lead the league in ERA, only lead the league once in strike outs and complete games. He was a solid pitcher but not even in the top ten of his era and maybe not even in the top 20 (though I'd have to look that up to be sure). No way he belongs.
And I realize that wins/losses are a "team stat" but the fact of the matter is, the <b>great pitchers win games</b>. Blyleven won a lot of games, but he lost nearly as many, and as an old timer, i have to count that against him.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Blyleven played on a terrible team for the vast majority of his career. Your bolded comment above is total bullshit. Pitching wins really is a worthless stat to measure the skill of a pitcher. I don't know if Blyleven should be a HOFer or not, but your reasoning is totally flawed. You are cherry picking stats to make your argument. Take his career as a whole and you'll see that he was underappreciated 25 years ago and is still underappreciated today.
Posts: 4,684
Threads: 78
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=74479:date=Jan 7 2010, 11:34 AM:name=Coldneck)-->QUOTE (Coldneck @ Jan 7 2010, 11:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=74454:date=Jan 7 2010, 11:16 AM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Jan 7 2010, 11:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=74400:date=Jan 6 2010, 07:35 PM:name=Runnys)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runnys @ Jan 6 2010, 07:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Veryzer...just curious, what is your rationale behind Blyleven not being a HOFer?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Blyleven pitched in a pitcher friendly era and never dominated at any point in his career. Never lead the league in wins, never lead the league in ERA, only lead the league once in strike outs and complete games. He was a solid pitcher but not even in the top ten of his era and maybe not even in the top 20 (though I'd have to look that up to be sure). No way he belongs.
And I realize that wins/losses are a "team stat" but the fact of the matter is, the <b>great pitchers win games</b>. Blyleven won a lot of games, but he lost nearly as many, and as an old timer, i have to count that against him.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Blyleven played on a terrible team for the vast majority of his career. Your bolded comment above is total bullshit. Pitching wins really is a worthless stat to measure the skill of a pitcher. I don't know if Blyleven should be a HOFer or not, but your reasoning is totally flawed. You are cherry picking stats to make your argument. Take his career as a whole and you'll see that he was underappreciated 25 years ago and is still underappreciated today.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, first off, his win total is fine. It's his loss total that bothers me. Secondly, that's just a small part of why i wouldn't vote for him. I stated the other reasons earlier in the post.
Great pitchers win games. I have no doubt in my mind that had Maddux stayed his entire career with the cubs, he still would've won 300 games. Seriously, how many shitty pitchers have won 200 games? A few, but not many. How many great ptchers didn't win 200 games. Koufax? He would've if he didn't quit. Not many others.
But none of that matters. what matters is that Blyleven was a solid pitcher, but not an elite pitcher. He was never dominant. Apparently I'm not the only one who feels this way.
Wang.
Posts: 14,113
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
It's still kind of amazing to me that Koufax made it to the Hall with only 11-12 years under his belt. Sure, 4 of those years were probably the most dominant in history for a SP, but longevity still has to count for something, and more than half of his career was mediocre at best. Even more surprising is that he retired at age 30, still in his prime and coming off arguably his best season. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve to be there, I'm just a little surprised that there isn't more controversy surrounding his induction.
Posts: 8,024
Threads: 100
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=74493:date=Jan 7 2010, 01:07 PM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Jan 7 2010, 01:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->It's still kind of amazing to me that Koufax made it to the Hall with only 11-12 years under his belt. Sure, 4 of those years were probably the most dominant in history for a SP, but longevity still has to count for something, and more than half of his career was mediocre at best. Even more surprising is that he retired at age 30, still in his prime and coming off arguably his best season. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve to be there, I'm just a little surprised that there isn't more controversy surrounding his induction.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Jews control Baseball.
Posts: 575
Threads: 12
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
I'm going to be interested to see what happens when Pedro retires. He pitched longer than Koufax, but neither have that gaudy win total. Pedro was the best for about 8 years though. Baseball-ref compares him with with 5 HOFers (Drysdale, Koufax, Marichal, Whitey Ford, and Chief Bender).
"If you throw at someone's head, it's very dangerous, because in the head is the brain." -- Pudge Rodriguez to AM 1270 WXYT in Detroit
Posts: 1,407
Threads: 18
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
Pedro will be a first ballot guy, he was dominant for a lot longer than Koufax. In his prime Pedro was easily the best pitcher I have ever seen.
Posts: 3,804
Threads: 111
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=74502:date=Jan 7 2010, 02:12 PM:name=CFOrfan)-->QUOTE (CFOrfan @ Jan 7 2010, 02:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'm going to be interested to see what happens when Pedro retires. He pitched longer than Koufax, but neither have that gaudy win total. Pedro was the best for about 8 years though. Baseball-ref compares him with with 5 HOFers (Drysdale, Koufax, Marichal, Whitey Ford, and Chief Bender).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pedro's a first ballot HOFer.
|
