Hall of Fame Eludes Andre Dawson, But Why?
Published January 10, 2008
The baseball Hall of Fame inducted Rich "Goose" Gossage this week.
Meanwhile back at the Hall of Justice, Jim Rice and Andre Dawson discuss what to do with the Wonder Twins as the news hit that they were overlooked – again.
It is time to revisit these odd omissions – again.
Specifically, the case of Andre Dawson. Let’s begin with comparing Dawson’s career to players with comparable numbers who are in the hall: Dave Winfield, Al Kaline and Billy Williams.
Andre Dawson:
In 21 seasons Hawk compiled: 2774 hits, 1373 runs, 503 doubles, 98 triples, 438 home runs, 314 stolen bases, 589 walks, .279 average, .323 on-base percentage, and a .482 slugging percentage.
The only glaring flaws in Dawson’s game were his bad knees and his OBP. Awful. Just plain awful. I remember when I was a kid watching the Expos it always seemed as though Dawson was striking out in key clutch situations. If my memory serves me correctly, he swung at a lot of bad pitches. Still, is this enough to keep him out?
I say no way. Na-ah.
Dawson won eight gold gloves and was a career .983 fielding percentage, so that mostly makes up for the low OBP. I said "mostly" didn't I? An eight time All-Star, Dawson was Rookie of the Year in 1977 with the Montreal Expos and won the MVP in 1987 with the Chicago Cubs. Dawson was on the MVP ballot nine times in his career and was second on two occasions in 1981 and 1983 for the Expos. He earned four Silver Sluggers in 1980, 1981, 1983, and 1987. Other than that, Dawson was pretty much a top-five-to-ten player in most categories including home runs and slugging.
So how does this compare three mentioned earlier?
Batter up Dave Winfield:
22 seasons; 3110 H, 1669 R, 540 2B, 88 3B, 465 HR, 223 SB, 1216 BB, .283 BA, .353 OBP, .475 SLG.
A deserved Famer, Dave the Big Smile was a 12 time All-Star who never won an MVP. Winfield won six Silver Sluggers and seven gold gloves with a career .982 fielding percentage.
Overall, Winfield’s numbers are better – but not that much better. Winnie and Dawsie have similar stats in batting average, home runs, slugging and fielding.
Batter up Al Kaline:
22 seasons; 3007 H, 1622 R, 407 2B, 90 3B, 512 HR, 50 SB, 763 BB, .274 BA, .330 OBP, .500 SLG.
I know. Al fricken Kaline. Kept in context, Kaline is the classic shoe-in case for the Hall. He was no borderliner. Still, he's a good example to cite here.
Kaline was made an All-Star an impressive 18 times and won 10 Gold Gloves with a lifetime .986 fielding. Though he never won MVP, he was on the ballot 14 times twice coming runner up. He was top 10 in batting average 11 times, winning a title in 1955. His .330 OBP is not that much higher than Dawson’s .323; though he was top 10 in this category on nine occasions.
- Hall of Fame Eludes Andre Dawson, But Why?
- Published: January 10, 2008
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Sports
- Filed Under: Sports: Baseball
- Writer: Alessandro Nicolo
- Alessandro Nicolo's BC Writer page
- Alessandro Nicolo's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Yeah, I always found such stats interesting. Former Edmonton Oiler Glen Anderson has 498 goals and 1099 points. What a nag.
Mario Lemieux notched 199 points in one season. ONE MORE POINT and he becomes only the second player to reach 200 points behind guess who - 99. What a nag.
Its the "Hall of Fame" not the "Hall of the pretty good." Neither Dawson or Rice met those magical numbers, 3000 or 500. They also played a long time to get those numbers, so their averages per season aren't that great. Thats why they aren't in and never will be
Aaron, those numbers are magical insofar they can't deny players entry but it's by no means the final judgment in my opinion. Good point notwithstanding neither Winfield or Williams meet the criteria and they are in.
Dawson and Rice played less than those players to boot.
If stats alone were the criteria, then there would be no voting and no debate -- you'd either be in or out, no question. It's probably a good thing that there is subjective voting. But the system does seem to be flawed (although not as much as the veteran's committee). Why is it that so many players get more and more votes each year until they finally get in. How does the passage of time change the measure of their accomplishments? Next year Rickey Henderson will probably make it in 1st ballot. But his votes will hamper Dawson's & Rice's. It shouldn't make a difference, but it will. Players who deserve to be in (Ron Santo) don't make it while other players get in who don't have the resume. Oh well.
Great article, Alessandro. Love the Bill James stats. The fact that Jim Rice lead his league in stats 33 times - better than the HofF standard of 27 - to Dave Winfield's 4 times says it all.
He should have been a no brainer Hall of Hamer. He was dominant and one of the most feared hitters of is era for at least 10 years. The only reason his numbers aren't as impressive as others is because he only played about 14 full seaons (that's just a guess).
He didn't have enough mediocre years at the end of his career to get to what used to be the magic number of 400 HRs and get close to 3000 hits. Baseball writers who just look at his 382 HRs and don't vote for him don't get it and probably never will. How does guys like Tony Perez make the Hall and not Jim Rice? What a joke.
Charlie and bleacherbummer, your comments combined remind me of a friend of mine who grew up watching baseball in the 70s. No doubt in his opinion, Rice,Dawson and Santo belong.
Do you think Rice not being in has anything to do with him being tagged as a jerk?
Charlie, amazing stat indeed! Heck, even Dawson beats him out! Despite this, I believe Winfield still belongs.
BB, interesting take on Henderson. It is what it is I guess.
Alessandro, it's just a guess, but I would say many years ago some of those 500+ baseball writer did hold a grudge against Rice (rightly or wrongly I don't know cuz I have no personal insight) for how he allegedly treated them in post-game interviews and elsewhere. I've heard that when reporters switched to subjects other than the game he just played, Rice got aggravated and had an attitude about it. [Whether his beef with reporters or their beef with him was legitimate shouldn't matter anyway. It was what it was.]
The Bob Ryans and Dan Shaughnessys of the world could probably give you a better answer than me since they've been covering Boston sports forever, but I don't think his off-the-field behavior has had any effect on writers' recent voting tallies, with results climbing closer and closer to that 75% mark. In fact, I think Jim Rice got within 16 votes of being elected to the Hall this time around, which has to be the closest he's ever been.
Those other 16 better get their act together and get this man in to the Hall next year, along with Dawson and Billy Williams, and perhaps Blylevin too.
I agree with your assessment. Thanks.
The "Goose" should have been there sooner and the "Hawk" and Jim Rice should be there now. Here's a good one: Kirby Puckett,nice guy,darling of the game gets in.........Albert Bell - not so nice,doesn't even get a mention. Compare their stats!What do think is gonna happen when Bobby Alomar comes up? Remember the "incident"? Does he have the stats? or will that incident be indelibly stamped on his HOF resume? What's it all about Alessandro?
In my opinion, Alomar is a shoe in. Belle I'm not so sure - he has solid numbers. Tough one.
I remember being at Fenway Park with my dad and watching Jim Rice smash three home runs in one game. The guy was larger than life at the time. I say put him in the hall.
Hawk should be in the hall as well as Robbie Alomar, and while Kirby got in with less then stellar numbers just remember his career, and life was cut short..
Kirby was also a really loved ambassador of the game, and even with his lack of Hall of Fame credentials he still was so loved that he was a clear choice to make it to the HALL.
I can't say the same for Belle who had similar numbers but he insisted in being a "BADBOY" during his career, and became someone who both the media, and fans hated.
Notice once his career ended prematurely that nobody wanted to talk about him again? Belle should NEVER be in the hall of fame.
Evildoer believes character is an important component on who gets in.
Fair enough.
But here's the rub: there are already many a-holes in the Hall.
Should it be a criteria?
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/72783)
2 more triples.
Would've given him a perfect 100.
First ballot.
No doubt.