A survey of Hall voters makes it sound very unlikely that McGwire will get in. They asked about 20 percent of the writers, and almost 60 percent of them said they won’t vote for him - so if they stick to their word, he would need overwhelming support from the remaining voters.
Sportswriters do not vote for the Gold Glove awards. The awards are voted on by managers and coaches.
What gives you this idea?
Dawson was not as valuable a fielder as Cal Ripken, not even in the same class. Dawson was certainly a very good outfielder, but Ripken was a very good shortstop for the majority of his career, and in the early to mid 80’s he was an awesome shorstop, the best in the American League. Because he played third late in his career, people are forgetting, I think, that Ripken was an exceptional shortstop, or maybe it’s just that he was tall so people assume he wasn’t good at it, but he was tremendous. He had a spectacular arm, maybe the best infielder’s arm I have ever seen, perfect footwork, played deep and got to everything. He got to an immense number of grounders. Shortstop has a much greater impact defensively, at least in the major leagues, than an outfielder, and Ripken was every bit as good a shortstop as Dawson was an outfielder.
Ripken was a slightly better hitter than Andre Dawson, overall; dismissing the difference as being just his OBP ignores the fact that OBP is the single most critical stat these is, the absolute heart of offensive ability. Stolen bases don’t offset that; 300 steals is hugely outweighed by more times on base and fewer outs. And the difference in OBP, while not huge, is pretty significant. When you then consider that Ripken was pumping out those numbers at short, where hitters are a bit harder to come by, and in a career a good 12-13% longer, it’s hard to not agree he’s better than Dawson.
For what it’s worth, all analytical stats place Ripken well ahead of Dawson. Ripken is rated as 167 wins above a replacement player to Dawson’s 104, according to WARP3. Ripken had 427 Win Shares to Dawson’s 340. I could go on, but won’t, because it’s boring to cite numbers.
Dude, recheck Ripken’s numbers. Maybe it’s just because I grew up in Maryland in the 80s and 90s, but I think he’s a solid HoF candidate *without * The Streak.
Career .276 hitter - pretty good for a SS but far from the best.
400+ HRs - practically unheard of for a SS.
Two Gold Gloves - I agree that individual Gold Gloves are somewhat overrated, but the guy also set the record for fielding percentage at shortstop (1990? 1991?).
Revolutionized his position - before Cal, the prototype shortstop was Ozzie Smith: a 5’8", 135 pound guy who hit about .280 with zero home runs and got buried in the lineup.
If Cal had taken days off in 1990, 1993 and 1997 (for example), breaking his streak into smaller, non-record-setting pieces, he’d still be one of the top ten shortstops ever.
I just don’t buy that line of reasoning. Yes, Short Stop is more valuable than outfield defensively, but not to the degree I think you’re implying. Ripken was a good fielder, but he only won 2 gold gloves (yes, we’ve been over how poor a measure that can be but if anyone was going to get the populist vote it’d be Ripken), and was never considered to be the best in the league at his position. Considering his longevity it’s especially damning I think. I’ll not claim that he was poor, though at the end of his career he was close, but he certain wasn’t remarkable unless you qualify that by saying “for a player of his size and offensive ability”. Dawson however was widely considered the best defensive player at his position for a decade. Watch Sammy Sosa stumble around an outfield and Juan Pierre try and throw a ball to the cut of the grass on the fly and you’ll know how important a OF that can excel at his position is. I do not believe that a above average to average SS is more valuable than the premiere RF in the league defensively.
To say that Ripken was every bit as good at his position as Dawson is flat wrong and defies every objective analysis of their abilities.
This just doesn’t wash with me. You argue that OBP is the end all be all of hitting measures, which is extremely dubious, but you then totally disregard SLG and OPS. It seems to me that most serious stat junkies prefer OPS to OBP in the measure of offensive ability and even with Dawson falling 17 points behind in the OBP category he overtakes Ripken by 18 points in the OPS.
I’ll concede that none of these differences are monumental, but to dismiss SLG as you did in favor of OBP feels like cherry picking. At worst it seems to me that Dawson was Ripken’s equal in the rate stats and he clearly out paced him in SBs, HRs, 3Bs. Ripken’s health isn’t to be discounted, but Dawson created runs at a greater rate than Ripken, 5.44 RC/27 versus 5.38. Bill James has created dozens of stats and I think most over value OBP. I think it’s a very important measure, don’t get me wrong, but James favors it to an unreasonable degree.
The problem with using win shares is two-fold. First, it unfairly favors players who play on good teams since the entire baseline is built off the players team’s total victories. These factors are only accentuated when the players compared play 21 seasons on two teams with vastly different fortunes. The Cubs sucking for a century doesn’t make Dawson a crummy player. Secondly it amplifies that
previously mentioned bias towards a given position defensively. It’s just way out of whack. WARP3 is equally screwed up for the same position-to-position disparity. Just to highlight the problem, Lou Gehrig falls way behind Ripken with a measley 147.2. You’re seriously going to argue that Ripken was more valuable than Gehrig? Ditto Dimaggio, Mantle, Schimdt, Brett?
Lets not pretend Bill James is the prophet of all player evaluations. If Bill James had the only say the HOF would be comprised of nothing but Shortstops, Catchers, Starting Pitchers and Babe, Ruth, Ted Williams, Willie Mays and Barry Bonds.
If there’s still room on the Gwynn/Ripken bandwagon, I’ll climb aboard. I really can’t see not voting for either guy.
My heart vote goes to Dale Murphy. Guy was about the only good thing in Atlanta for a long time.
I think Coke was pretty decent back then… just a thought.
Good one. 
Oh, I reckon that way too, but in praising him with faint damnation (he won two whole Gold Gloves! He won the ROTY award! OMG!) you’re actually supporting my argument: he’s a HOFer, sure, but people are talking about him like he’s a Babe Ruth/Willie Mays/Mike Schmidt no-brainer. He ain’t.
Also I left a phrase in my comments about Gwynn: some power is nice in a corner outfielder.
left out a phrase
I would vote for Gwynn, Ripken, John, and Gossage.
Gwynn and Ripken go without saying as first ballot near-unanimous choices.
I would vote no on McGwire. When the sport faces a crisis and you’re asked to step up to the plate for it, you don’t say no. He did. His “not talking about the past” said as much as if he had come out and confessed.
Tommy John had the longevity and the numbers to get in. He’s one of several pitchers from that era that had pretty good careers over an extended time yet never quite dominating at any time.
Goose Gossage has been stiffed. At the time he was the premier closer and I think the first of the short relief superstars. He changed the game, in my opinion.
The others nominated don’t quite meet my expectations of what HOF players should be.
Besides, isn’t election to the HOF all about the past? McGwire doesn’t want that, right?
I am a Gossage supporter. He should already be in the HOF.
That said, Rolly Fingers was the first of the short relief superstars. Gossage was right behind him. Fingers was also probably a better closer than Gossage.
Gossage was great for a long time and very good for a long time after that. Batters feared Gossage. He pitched many 3 innings saves and occasionally pitched 5 inning relief wins. He was more likely to pitch two innings than one and he was still more effective than all but two or three of the modern one inning closers. I would take Rivera over Gossage and I would take Fingers over Gossage. They are the only two.
Jim
Oooh darn, I forgot about old Rollie. Apologies to Mr. Fingers. He was indeed the first of the short relief superstars. Plus he had a cool mustache.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
Sportswriters do not vote for the Gold Glove awards. The awards are voted on by managers and coaches.
[QUOTE]
Dang, and I KNEW that!
I don’t think my basic point has been tarnished, though, even if my IQ has.
So it was Ralph Houk and Eddie Kasko who gave all those Gold Gloves to Jim Kaat, rather than Dick Young and SHirley Povich. Fact remains, even if Kaat was a superb fielder, hardly anybody ever saw him make a great defensive play. Kaat just didn’t play a position that gives people much of a chance to shine in the field.
Gold Gloves tend to go to the guys who’ve always won them in the past, whether they’re deserving or not. I think even Jim Kaat would admit that people voted for him out of habit, as much as anything else.
How can you win two Gold Gloves and not be considered the best in your league at the position?
Look, I know Tony Fernandez won more Gold Gloves in the 80’s. I’m a Blue Jays fan and I’m telling you Ripken was better, and the numbers say he was better.
Please provide evidence of objective analysis that says Dawson was a better defensive player. Certainly, the advanced analystical stats all say Ripken was better. Fielding Runs Above Average? Ripken is wayyyy ahead.
Dawson was a very good defensive player. He was, however, a bit overrated; he started to lose range pretty early in his career thanks to the Olympic Stadium turf. He was not a truly elite outfielder like an Andruw Jones or Devon White.
I did not “totally disregard” SLG, and OPS is just OBP and SLG and in any event is just a quickie stat. A player with a slightly lower OPS but an advantage in OBP is usually the better hitter anyway. Getting on base is the most important offensive skill. There is no argument to the contrary. Power’s important too, but OBP is the #1 skill.
Sorry, dude, but I was dismissing nothing. YOU simply pooh-poohed Ripken making fewer outs and getting on base more. Of course Dawson had more power; Ripken got on base more. It is false to state Dawson was a better offensive player. He was not.
One hundred percent false. It’s been proven over and over again this doesn’t happen; great players on bad teams get as many WS as they deserve because they get a bigger chunk of the team’s wins.
AS to WARP and Rip[ken falling behind the likes of Gehrig, you have to adjust that to career length; Gehrig and DiMaggio had much shorter careers, so if you adjust for that you see why that is and it becomes quickly apparent Ripken is not better than they are. Dawson’s career was much closer to Ripken’s in length and the different does not explain Ripken’s advantages.
I think Gwynn, Ripken, Blyleven, Gossage, and Trammell all are (or should be) no doubt Hall of Famers.
Blyleven appears less deserving to me that Kaat, who I have already said is not quite a Hall of Famer.
He was never a top ace. He only won 20 games once in his 22-year career.
The positives for Bert are that over a 22 year career, he was +.59 on ERA vs. League ERA. Jim Kaat was only +.24 and Tommy John only +.35.
He accumulated 3701 Ks vs. only 1322 BB. He was very good in his post-season appearances, going 5-1 with a 2.47 ERA.
The Baseball-Reference Hall of Fame Markers put him borderline. He was a top-level accumulator, not a Great Ace. He had no Cy Young awards and only two All Star appearances. He never had the Buzz of a great pitcher.
A vote for him means you think accumulation of statistics is enough to get into the Hall, if you are consistent in this, that is fine, but please do not make the argument that he was a “Great Player”.
Jim
Some numbers can be explained away. RBI are partly due to having team mates on board when you come to bat. Home runs and batting average are to a great degree measures of hitting prowess. McGwire number 6 all time home runs. You can not ignore that stat. Mattingly 307 lifetime. While Mac used something you would have to agree many did including the pitchers he faced. The league was not clean and it still isn’t. But it was legal for him at that time. The blame for that falls on the game not the player. Slugging percentage is another indicator.
Gold gloves are a wash. If everything else was even I would consider it a tiebreaker. Mattingly played during the dark ages of the Yankees. If they were successful he would have gotten more respect.
Canseco was a 40 -40 player when it was unheard of. With a longer career he would have to be considered.
We’ve had several threads on this, but the bottom line to me isn’t just the accumulation of statistics, but my sense that (1) he had one of the best curveballs in the history of the game; (2) there were ten seasons or so (I can go into detail when I get some time) in which he was one of the top five pitchers in baseball; and (3) he excelled in the postseason.
I don’t know why he should be taken to task for not winning twenty games more often, given the (if I recall correctly) horrendous run support he got throughout most of his career. Unless you believe that pitchers influence the run support they get (which isn’t a crazy position, but I don’t think it’s been established), that’s got to mitigate his low season-by-season win totals.
And this may be true, but I don’t think it should ultimately be determinative. It’s so self-perpetuating.