Andre Dawson

[ruby23]

<!--quoteo(post=11035:date=Jan 12 2009, 05:05 PM:name=cigar)-->QUOTE (cigar @ Jan 12 2009, 05:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Anybody that thinks Andre Dawson does not belong in the HOF does not know shit about baseball. It is simple as that.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't really think it's that cut and dry. I think he deserves to be in, but I don't see it as a slam dunk. If Jim Rice is there though, Dawson should be too.

[Tailgater]

That's exactly right Ruby. One can totally understand why Rice got in, but when you compare the numbers, it makes it all that more clear that Dawson should go. We need to just face the reality that the voting process is a mess.
If Ozzie Smith was a first ballot (deservingly so), why did it take Sandberg 4 tries? Fielding percentage almost the same, yet Ryno played a tougher position, and offensivly...not even close. I read today where one guy admited that he simply forgot to vote for Henderson. That and he said something to the effect of, "based on the fact that he played for 9 teams alone, I should have voted for him." Pathetic.

I am looking forward to Henderson's induction speech though.

[Clapp]

It should also be noted that nobody hit 50 homers in the 80's, making his 87 season even more impressive.

[Clapp]

Even Sullifuck gets it.

[cigar]

<!--quoteo(post=11043:date=Jan 12 2009, 05:36 PM:name=ruby23)-->QUOTE (ruby23 @ Jan 12 2009, 05:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=11035:date=Jan 12 2009, 05:05 PM:name=cigar)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cigar @ Jan 12 2009, 05:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Anybody that thinks Andre Dawson does not belong in the HOF does not know shit about baseball. It is simple as that.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't really think it's that cut and dry. I think he deserves to be in, but I don't see it as a slam dunk. If Jim Rice is there though, Dawson should be too.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


I think it is but to each his own. Dawson should be compared to his era not the blown up statistics era of todays game. If that was done like it should of been Dawson is a slam dunk.

[Clapp]

<!--quoteo(post=11053:date=Jan 12 2009, 05:04 PM:name=cigar)-->QUOTE (cigar @ Jan 12 2009, 05:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=11043:date=Jan 12 2009, 05:36 PM:name=ruby23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ruby23 @ Jan 12 2009, 05:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=11035:date=Jan 12 2009, 05:05 PM:name=cigar)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cigar @ Jan 12 2009, 05:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Anybody that thinks Andre Dawson does not belong in the HOF does not know shit about baseball. It is simple as that.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't really think it's that cut and dry. I think he deserves to be in, but I don't see it as a slam dunk. If Jim Rice is there though, Dawson should be too.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


I think it is but to each his own. Dawson should be compared to his era not the sblown up statistics era of todays game. If that was done like it should of been Dawson is a slam dunk.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yep, and Len just said that on Tribune Live.

[Kid]

It's a very inexact science but for the off-the-field stuff, I think the question would be whether their off-the-field issues had a negative impact on the game. That's why I'd vote to keep Bonds out. I don't think you can make an argument that's the case for Rickey.

[Ace]

It's the Hall of FAME. How could you keep a guy like Bonds out?

I say let him in, but in the Hall, you tell the whole story.

[Kid]

<!--quoteo(post=11097:date=Jan 12 2009, 10:23 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Jan 12 2009, 10:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->It's the Hall of FAME. How could you keep a guy like Bonds out?

I say let him in, but in the Hall, you tell the whole story.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a reasonable position, but I think you take the entire picture into account. If, even when considering his undoubtedly HOF-worthy numbers, Bonds has an overall negative impact on the game, I say keep him out. I think he does, so fuck him.

[Ace]

<!--quoteo(post=11101:date=Jan 12 2009, 10:28 PM:name=Kid)-->QUOTE (Kid @ Jan 12 2009, 10:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=11097:date=Jan 12 2009, 10:23 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Jan 12 2009, 10:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->It's the Hall of FAME. How could you keep a guy like Bonds out?

I say let him in, but in the Hall, you tell the whole story.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a reasonable position, but I think you take the entire picture into account. If, even when considering his undoubtedly HOF-worthy numbers into account, Bonds has an overall negative impact on the game, I say keep him out. I think he does, so fuck him.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wouldn't shred you for voting that way; I just thinking keeping him out taints the story of baseball more than letting him - and all the true ugliness - in. Just look at Pete Rose.

[savant]

<!--quoteo(post=11102:date=Jan 12 2009, 09:29 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Jan 12 2009, 09:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=11101:date=Jan 12 2009, 10:28 PM:name=Kid)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid @ Jan 12 2009, 10:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=11097:date=Jan 12 2009, 10:23 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Jan 12 2009, 10:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->It's the Hall of FAME. How could you keep a guy like Bonds out?

I say let him in, but in the Hall, you tell the whole story.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a reasonable position, but I think you take the entire picture into account. If, even when considering his undoubtedly HOF-worthy numbers into account, Bonds has an overall negative impact on the game, I say keep him out. I think he does, so fuck him.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wouldn't shred you for voting that way; I just thinking keeping him out taints the story of baseball more than letting him - and all the true ugliness - in. Just look at Pete Rose.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


I think a reasonable compromise would be allow Bonds to go in the hall for his body of work before the steroids turned him into a freak of nature. But to go along with that he would have to drop the 40lbs he put on, and shrink his head back down to the point that he could wear one of his ugly Pittsburgh hats again.

[Clapp]

I dislike Bonds and Henderson, but they'd get my vote on the first ballot. The off the field stuff doesn't matter to me. They're 2 of the best ballplayers I've ever seen. Rickey's by far the best leadoff hitter of all-time, and the best basestealer of all-time. Bonds is the best hitter I've ever seen. I take the steroid stuff into consideration, but it's not like Bonds was the only one doing it and he was going to be a HOF'er without juicing anyway. I agree with Ace, it's about what they did on the field to me. If not liking a player because they were on a rival team or you think they're an ass really prevents you from voting for players, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[Kid]

<!--quoteo(post=11102:date=Jan 12 2009, 10:29 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Jan 12 2009, 10:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=11101:date=Jan 12 2009, 10:28 PM:name=Kid)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid @ Jan 12 2009, 10:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=11097:date=Jan 12 2009, 10:23 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Jan 12 2009, 10:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->It's the Hall of FAME. How could you keep a guy like Bonds out?

I say let him in, but in the Hall, you tell the whole story.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a reasonable position, but I think you take the entire picture into account. If, even when considering his undoubtedly HOF-worthy numbers into account, Bonds has an overall negative impact on the game, I say keep him out. I think he does, so fuck him.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wouldn't shred you for voting that way; I just thinking keeping him out taints the story of baseball more than letting him - and all the true ugliness - in. Just look at Pete Rose.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pete Rose shouldn't be let in either. His original crime pushed him close to the line, but didn't merit keeping him out. But the fact that he lied about it for another 17 years, only to admit that he bet on his own team when it was both profitable (he was selling a book) and for him to make his announcement at the same time that the 2004 HOF announcements came out (thereby overshadowing Dennis Eckersley & Paul Molitor), made it far worse. Besides that, the fact that he admits to lying about betting <b>on</b> his own team for 17 years after he was banned means that his denials now that he never bet <b>against</b> his own team meaningless.

I think almost everyone would agree that if Rose actually bet against his own team, he shouldn't be in the HOF. And there's absolutely no reason to believe him when he now says "yeah I bet on them, but not against them."

Between his crime, his lies, the way he had his "come to Jesus" moment, and the outstanding questions on his conduct, Rose's impact is now a net negative on the game and he should be kept out.

[veryzer]

<!--quoteo(post=11011:date=Jan 12 2009, 04:16 PM:name=Runnys)-->QUOTE (Runnys @ Jan 12 2009, 04:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Can someone explain to me how Jim Rice can get in but Andre Dawsom can't?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


honestly, jim rice put together a string of 3 years that is one of the best in modern baseball history. jim rice has the numbers. whats killed him is longevity.

i love dawson, but rice was a much better hitter.

[BT]

-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.