# It's Hall of Fame time again. Vote for your baseball favorites! **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [December 2, 2005, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-hall-of-fame-time-again-vote-for-your-baseball-favorites/333788 "2005-12-02T19:27:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-hall-of-fame-time-again-vote-for-your-baseball-favorites/333788/61 "2005-12-06T19:44:22Z")
> [@jrfranchi](#): > > **Omniscient & Jonathan Chance** : > How do you feel about **Jim Kaat**? > > Now look at his stats and numbers. > > I think Dawson is like [Kaat](http://www.baseball-reference.com/k/kaatji01.shtml): Just a cut below HOF status. > > Jim And yet, Kaat’s numbers are almost as good as Don Sutton’s. It makes me think that if Kaat had managed just 14 more wins in his career, he’d be in the Hall of Fame, deserving or not. I don’t mean to insult Sutton or Kaat, really! I’d have LOVED to have either as the number two starter on my team any day! But I don’t regard either as an elite pitcher. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-hall-of-fame-time-again-vote-for-your-baseball-favorites/333788/62 "2005-12-06T20:01:39Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > And yet, Kaat’s numbers are almost as good as Don Sutton’s. It makes me think that if Kaat had managed just 14 more wins in his career, he’d be in the Hall of Fame, deserving or not. > > I don’t mean to insult Sutton or Kaat, really! I’d have LOVED to have either as the number two starter on my team any day! But I don’t regard either as an elite pitcher. Well Sutton wasn’t really HOF worthy either but that’s yet another argument. Jim ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-hall-of-fame-time-again-vote-for-your-baseball-favorites/333788/63 "2005-12-06T20:50:55Z")
I can’t conceive of any argument which makes Kaat similar to Dawson. Kaat never won a CY Young, was only in the running once. In all the key pitching stats, Ks, WHIP, ERA and Wins he’s hardly ever near the top in a given season. The only stat that gets him close is his overall win total, which is nice but not similar to Dawson _at all_. He was only in the top ten for wins in 7 of his 25 seasons, top ten in ERA or WHIP 3 times and Ks 4 times. Those are barely middling accomplishments. The _only_ reason Kaat is up for discussion is that he played for 25 years and managed 283 wins. Dawson was consistently at the top of the league in total bases, slugging, HRs and RBIs and was constantly getting MVP consideration. If you think Kaat is “just below” HOF level, you’ve made the most convincing argument that Dawson’s a rock solid HOFer of anyone. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-hall-of-fame-time-again-vote-for-your-baseball-favorites/333788/64 "2005-12-06T21:00:25Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > I can’t conceive of any argument which makes Kaat similar to Dawson. > > Kaat never won a CY Young, was only in the running once. In all the key pitching stats, Ks, WHIP, ERA and Wins he’s hardly ever near the top in a given season. > > The only stat that gets him close is his overall win total, which is nice but not similar to Dawson _at all_. > > He was only in the top ten for wins in 7 of his 25 seasons, top ten in ERA or WHIP 3 times and Ks 4 times. Those are barely middling accomplishments. > > The _only_ reason Kaat is up for discussion is that he played for 25 years and managed 283 wins. > > Dawson was consistently at the top of the league in total bases, slugging, HRs and RBIs and was constantly getting MVP consideration. > > If you think Kaat is “just below” HOF level, you’ve made the most convincing argument that Dawson’s a rock solid HOFer of anyone. Well right off the bat, (that’s a pun son, get it, a pun) they are both very good players that are not in the HOF. That is similarity #1. Jim Kaat has the most GG by any pitcher ever. That actually puts him well ahead of Andre for fielding. He won 20 games 3 times. He was a great pitcher to watch, get the ball and throw the ball, no time wasted. The silly HOF Monitor: Pitching - 129.5 (56) (Likely HOFer \> 100) is very close to Dawson. Jim ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-hall-of-fame-time-again-vote-for-your-baseball-favorites/333788/65 "2005-12-06T21:25:46Z")
> [@jrfranchi](#): > > Well right off the bat, (that’s a pun son, get it, a pun) they are both very good players that are not in the HOF. That is similarity #1. > Jim Kaat has the most GG by any pitcher ever. That actually puts him well ahead of Andre for fielding. He won 20 games 3 times. He was a great pitcher to watch, get the ball and throw the ball, no time wasted. > The silly HOF Monitor: Pitching - 129.5 (56) (Likely HOFer \> 100) is very close to Dawson. > > Jim Thats pretty darn thin. I’ll give you that he’s a comparable fielder to Dawson, though I think comparing a defensive pitcher to a defensive OF is pretty tricky. Winning 20 games 3 times out of 25 seasons is feint praise (especially when your career average is 12 wins), and I’m not really sure how that makes him similar to Dawson. As 2005 Clemens will attest, wins are a pretty iffy measure for rating quality of pitcher and wins are about the only thing Kaat has going for him. I’m sure he was very fan friendly (he predates me) but from a HOF resume standpoint, I’m a little lost as for how you’re comparison holds. I think most objective analysis would rate Dawson alot higher on the food chain than Kaat. Basically I see Kaat as one of those one-dimensional guys, who only makes a strong case for induction on one statistical category. He hung around for a very long time and as a result climbed the Wins list, and thats pretty much his only stat of note. Dawson’s resume isn’t one-dimensional. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-hall-of-fame-time-again-vote-for-your-baseball-favorites/333788/66 "2005-12-06T21:47:20Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > Thats pretty darn thin. I’ll give you that he’s a comparable fielder to Dawson, though I think comparing a defensive pitcher to a defensive OF is pretty tricky. Winning 20 games 3 times out of 25 seasons is feint praise (especially when your career average is 12 wins), and I’m not really sure how that makes him similar to Dawson. As 2005 Clemens will attest, wins are a pretty iffy measure for rating quality of pitcher and wins are about the only thing Kaat has going for him. > > I’m sure he was very fan friendly (he predates me) but from a HOF resume standpoint, I’m a little lost as for how you’re comparison holds. I think most objective analysis would rate Dawson alot higher on the food chain than Kaat. > > Basically I see Kaat as one of those one-dimensional guys, who only makes a strong case for induction on one statistical category. He hung around for a very long time and as a result climbed the Wins list, and thats pretty much his only stat of note. Dawson’s resume isn’t one-dimensional. Actually for 15 years Kaat was a solid 1 or 2 guy. That is a long period of value. The wins per year are brought way down by being a 10 year bullpen guy. Take 62 to 76 as his Starting Career, he will look a lot better. 252-190 for that period. You are killing him for sticking around. You are right however it is not a fair comparison, it is hard to compare pitchers to positional players. Dawson’s numbers are just lacking and his OBP is deadly. If we look at Baseball-references Similar players we get the following: Billy Williams (892) \* Tony Perez (886) \* Dave Parker (865) Al Kaline (859) \* Harold Baines (851) Dwight Evans (834) Ernie Banks (829) \* Dave Winfield (827) \* Vada Pinson (810) Fred McGriff (797) About half are hall of famers. So it would not be a travesty if Dawson got in but it is not a travesty he hasn’t. Jim ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-hall-of-fame-time-again-vote-for-your-baseball-favorites/333788/67 "2005-12-07T00:19:25Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > . If he were more one-dimentional and boosted his numbers in any one category, he’d be in without a fight. If he’d have hit .250 and added an extra 60 HRs you guys would be carving his plaque yourselves. No, gosh, I know I wouldn’t. If you take away 25 points of batting average he’d be WORSE - that drops his slugging percentage and on base percentage. It’s a neat hypothetical you’re drawing but that’s all there is because there has never been a player similar to that. I mean, you don’t see me shouting for Dave Kingman to be elected to the Hall of Fame. > [@](#): > > He spent the bulk of his career batting 5th and was required to drive in runs, not getting on base. No, he didn’t. Dawson hit third and fourth most of his career. As to what he was “Required” to do, it is a hitter’s job to help his team score runs. the most important thing a player can do to help his team score runs is get on base. It doesn’t matter where you hit in the lineup. You can’t just dismiss this. > [@](#): > > He was one of the best LFs to play the game (yes, top 5) but no one cares about defense. Dawson was not a left fielder. He played center and right with the Expos, and right with the Cubs. And who doesn’t care about defense? I sure care about defense; why do you think I’m arguing Ozzie Smith was the 1987 MVP? If it wasn’t for defense, Ozzie wouldn’t have been the MVP of his own infield. YOU’RE the one all agog over Dawson’s home runs; I’m the one saying the glove made Smith a better player and looking at the entire picture rather than just homers 'n RBIs. I just don’t see a lot of evidence that Dawson was all that spectacular an outfielder; he was very good, especially when he was with Montreal, but he wasn’t Devon White or anything. Yes, he won a bunch of Gold Gloves. Rafael Palmiero once won a Gold Glove for a position he barely played. They kept giving the aforementioned Jim Kaat Gold Gloves every year pretty much out of habit. > [@](#): > > Look at how many of these first ballot guys have a single statistic in which they fall short, but that doesn’t keep them out. In the NBA they’d say this guy fills up a box score. This isn’t the NBA. And who’re these first ballot Hall of Famer who fall so short? I’m sure almost every Hall of Famer wasn’t good at something. Name one who wasn’t better than Andre Dawson. Okay, Kirby Puckett. (Weird choice.) Name two. > [@](#): > > One last thing, Ozzie slugged for a embarassing .383 (10 points lower than his OBP) in 87, Dawson slugged for .568. You can have you OBP thanks, I’ll take 49 HRs an 137 RBIs. Funny how Dawson’s team finished in last place, then. Given the relative balance of their numbers (depending on what numbers you believe; some analytical stats put Ozzie WAY ahead) I’ll stick with the shortstop with the pennant. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-hall-of-fame-time-again-vote-for-your-baseball-favorites/333788/68 "2005-12-07T02:41:40Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > Dawson was consistently at the top of the league in total bases, slugging, HRs and RBIs and was constantly getting MVP consideration. I don’t know that this part is exactly true, **Omni** , and I think this is what hurts Dawson’s chances. He was pretty consistently in the top ten in those categories, but you don’t see all that many 1’s, 2’s and 3’s in his season-by-season ranks. This is fine, and there’s no reason a Hall of Famer needs to actually lead the league in anything four or five times, or a couple of times in a row or whatever, but then you look at his career numbers and none of them are really that awe-inspiring, either. You posted his similarity scores earlier; look at the OBP’s vs. league OBP’s and the OPS+ numbers on that list, and consider that most of those guys weren’t even locks to get in themselves. Admittedly, that’s cherry-picking a number that puts him in a bad light, but with what numbers can you really counter his shortcomings there? Four top five finishes in homers, two (!) in RBI, three in slugging, five in total bases? To me, Dawson comes off as just a little bit worse than the borderline guys he’s been compared to, and without anything to really hang his hat on, I don’t think he gets in. A lot of very good, not enough great. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-hall-of-fame-time-again-vote-for-your-baseball-favorites/333788/69 "2005-12-07T03:41:11Z")
One other point in the Ozzie vs. Dawson debate: shortstop is the single most important defensive position on a baseball team. Right field is not (it’s often been a place to hide defensive liabilities for that very reason), and even center field doesn’t begin to compare. Ozzie Smith handled a LOT more chances each season than even such stellar shortstops as Mark Belanger or Larry Bowa, and he handled them as cleanly as Bowa & Belanger. As a direct result of having Ozzie Smith at short, the Cardinals faced far fewer baserunners and potential scorers than they would have with anyone else at short. Andre Dawson was a very solid right fielder, but how much worse off would the Cubs /Expos really have been defensively with a lesser right fielder? Face it- the difference between a so-so right fielder and a great right fielder is insignificant compared to the difference between a mediocre shortstop and a great one. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-hall-of-fame-time-again-vote-for-your-baseball-favorites/333788/70 "2005-12-07T05:33:18Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > No, gosh, I know I wouldn’t. If you take away 25 points of batting average he’d be WORSE - that drops his slugging percentage and on base percentage. It’s a neat hypothetical you’re drawing but that’s all there is because there has never been a player similar to that. I mean, you don’t see me shouting for Dave Kingman to be elected to the Hall of Fame. I’m extrapolating from the comments I’ve heard about him not having any milestones. If he exchanged 25 points of BA for 62 HRS, which gives him 500 HRS, I can’t imagine anyone fighting to keep him out. I’m stressing how arbitrary those “magic numbers” HOF voters and critics love are. You telling me that if Dawson had 500 HRs you wouldn’t vote him in? > [@](#): > > No, he didn’t. Dawson hit third and fourth most of his career. I’ve been looking everywhere for his splits with no luck, but I recall him batting fifth on the Cubs for the majority of his time there. I was too young to recall him in Montreal. > [@](#): > > As to what he was “Required” to do, it is a hitter’s job to help his team score runs. the most important thing a player can do to help his team score runs is get on base. It doesn’t matter where you hit in the lineup. You can’t just dismiss this. He’s 28th All-time in RBIs, are you seriously implying that he didn’t help his team score runs? He’s 62nd on the all-time runs created list, while not a perfect stat, 45 of the guys ahead of him are in the hall and 8 are locks when they become eligible, one is Pete Rose. To say his BA hindered his ability to produce runs is simply wrong. If you ignore the steriod issue, like 90% of players with 1400 runs created are in the hall or would be, and Dawson has 1536! Helping his piss-poor teams score runs is not in question. > [@](#): > > Dawson was not a left fielder. He played center and right with the Expos, and right with the Cubs. You’re right and I knew that, as always preview. :smack: > [@](#): > > And who doesn’t care about defense? I sure care about defense; why do you think I’m arguing Ozzie Smith was the 1987 MVP? If it wasn’t for defense, Ozzie wouldn’t have been the MVP of his own infield. YOU’RE the one all agog over Dawson’s home runs; I’m the one saying the glove made Smith a better player and looking at the entire picture rather than just homers 'n RBIs. I just don’t see a lot of evidence that Dawson was all that spectacular an outfielder; he was very good, especially when he was with Montreal, but he wasn’t Devon White or anything. Yes, he won a bunch of Gold Gloves. Rafael Palmiero once won a Gold Glove for a position he barely played. They kept giving the aforementioned Jim Kaat Gold Gloves every year pretty much out of habit. I’d say he was spectacular before his knees were destroyed, and still very good afterwards. I’m not dogging you on the defense, just that the same guys who argue for Smith and Trammell based on defense will totally dismiss it when talking about non-SS players who hit for power. That was my point. > [@](#): > > And who’re these first ballot Hall of Famer who fall so short? I’m sure almost every Hall of Famer wasn’t good at something. Name one who wasn’t better than Andre Dawson. Okay, Kirby Puckett. (Weird choice.) Name two. Dave Winfield? Robin Yount was pretty close in the rate stats but nearly 200 HRs shy. Hell, going by just the numbers you could make a case that he was better than Ernie Banks…I won’t, but someone could. > [@](#): > > Funny how Dawson’s team finished in last place, then. Given the relative balance of their numbers (depending on what numbers you believe; some analytical stats put Ozzie WAY ahead) I’ll stick with the shortstop with the pennant. The Cubs sucked that year and had no pitching, Ozzie was playing with 3 other guys having HUGE years so lets not pretend Ozzie gets alll, or even most, of the credit for that pennant. I’m not trying to say Ozzie had no business winning the award, he’d have been worthy, but I’m not buying that he _clearly_ had a better year than Dawson. Just for kicks I’ll paste in what [Jayson Stark said](http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/stark_jayson/1307338.html) about Dawson when he was put on the ballot (emphasis mine): > [@Jayson Stark](#): > > 1. ANDRE DAWSON > Dawson probably won’t come within 100 votes of getting elected. But friends, this man was a Hall of Famer. > He won one MVP award and finished second twice. He was a rookie of the year. He won eight Gold Gloves. And for almost a solid decade, you could never debate the identity of the National League’s best player without mentioning his name. > In his prime, from 1978 through 1992, he got more extra-base hits than any player in baseball. And he was a consistent presence among the league leaders in a million categories – homers, RBI, hits, runs, slugging, total bases, etc., etc. > **He never quite got to 500 homers or 3,000 hits. But only two players in history have combined for as many home runs (438), hits (2,774) and stolen bases (314) as Dawson – Willie Mays and Barry Bonds. Pretty good group.** > > No telling how many bases the Hawk would have stolen if his knee cartilage hadn’t turned to linguini, courtesy of the joint-eating AstroConcrete in Montreal. By the time he got to Chicago in 1987, he needed to go through more ice cubes than the Cubby Bear Lounge just to play at all. > Because of the way he carried himself and all the pain he endured to keep himself in the lineup, Andre Dawson commanded as much respect from his peers as any player of his time. So I’ll never have a second thought marking his name on any Hall of Fame ballot. Here’s [another column](http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/stark_jayson/1488642.html) by him in which he makes a case that the inflated stats of today have killed the greats from the 80s. I’m inclined to agree, based on the HOF balloting you’d think that hardly anyone who played in the 80s was any good. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-hall-of-fame-time-again-vote-for-your-baseball-favorites/333788/71 "2005-12-07T05:36:19Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > One other point in the Ozzie vs. Dawson debate: shortstop is the single most important defensive position on a baseball team. Right field is not (it’s often been a place to hide defensive liabilities for that very reason), and even center field doesn’t begin to compare. > > Ozzie Smith handled a LOT more chances each season than even such stellar shortstops as Mark Belanger or Larry Bowa, and he handled them as cleanly as Bowa & Belanger. As a direct result of having Ozzie Smith at short, the Cardinals faced far fewer baserunners and potential scorers than they would have with anyone else at short. > > Andre Dawson was a very solid right fielder, but how much worse off would the Cubs /Expos really have been defensively with a lesser right fielder? > > Face it- the difference between a so-so right fielder and a great right fielder is insignificant compared to the difference between a mediocre shortstop and a great one. I’m not arguing any of this, I agree. However, that doesn’t mean being an excellent defender at any position has no value when building a HOF resume. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-hall-of-fame-time-again-vote-for-your-baseball-favorites/333788/72 "2005-12-07T05:39:40Z")
> [@Jimmy Chitwood](#): > > This is fine, and there’s no reason a Hall of Famer needs to actually lead the league in anything four or five times, or a couple of times in a row or whatever, but then you look at his career numbers and none of them are really that awe-inspiring, either. Each taken individually, sure I agree. But he was just shy of many different milestones, that’s awe inspiring to me. The Stark quote above highlights that point. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-hall-of-fame-time-again-vote-for-your-baseball-favorites/333788/73 "2005-12-07T06:37:57Z")
Bert Blyleven That’s it. I could be swayed on Gossage, I guess. A lot of Very Goods in this class – Hershiser, Mattingly, Dawson, Smith, Sutter are all close but no cigar. I’d like to see Tramell and Whitaker go in together. Their stats are so close I don’t see how one goes in and the other doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-hall-of-fame-time-again-vote-for-your-baseball-favorites/333788/74 "2005-12-07T13:35:40Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Bert Blyleven > > That’s it. I could be swayed on Gossage, I guess. A lot of Very Goods in this class – Hershiser, Mattingly, Dawson, Smith, Sutter are all close but no cigar. > I’d like to see Tramell and Whitaker go in together. Their stats are so close I don’t see how one goes in and the other doesn’t. Gossage was more dominate than Blyleven. Blyleven is a good match for Jim Kaat, not a HOFer but a very good pitcher. Jim ---
**Author:** ![RancidYakButterTeaParty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@RancidYakButterTeaParty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RancidYakButterTeaParty)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-hall-of-fame-time-again-vote-for-your-baseball-favorites/333788/75 "2005-12-07T17:58:11Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > Let me risk being accused of flogging a dead horse here, but how can you tout Trammell and not Dawson? Dawson was a better fielder and a better hitter than Trammell. Or do only shortstops get consideration for defense in HOF discussions? > > I’m so perplexed that he doesn’t even get hemming and hawing from you guys, even if he’s not a lock he’s got to be at the top of the list of position players up for consideration. Dawson’s Lifetime Batting Average: .279 Trammell’s: .285 Slugging percentage: .482 .415 Strikeouts: 1,509 874 Hits 2,774 2,365 Fielding Percentage .983 .977 Dawson also played one more season than Trammell. I think these numbers show that they are very comparable as hitters. Dawson knocked in more runners, but Trammell was more consistent. Fielding percentages are very close, but Trammell’s position much more demanding. I would definitely give the edge to Trammell as a fielder. I don’t think you can say definitively (without bias) that Dawson was a better hitter and fielder than Trammell. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-hall-of-fame-time-again-vote-for-your-baseball-favorites/333788/76 "2005-12-07T22:23:03Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > I’m extrapolating from the comments I’ve heard about him not having any milestones. If he exchanged 25 points of BA for 62 HRS, which gives him 500 HRS, I can’t imagine anyone fighting to keep him out. I’m stressing how arbitrary those “magic numbers” HOF voters and critics love are. You telling me that if Dawson had 500 HRs you wouldn’t vote him in? In the scenario you presented - Dawson gets 500 homers but only with a .250 batting average, meaning he would in fact be a worse hitter, since that would be well over 200 fewer hits - I absolutely, unquestionably, without a doubt would not vote him in. That would make him a very substantially worse hitter than he is now. He’s a borderline pick now; with 29 fewer batting average points and 62 more homers he’d be easily the worst Hall pick ever. That would drop his OBP below .300 and would even take a few points off his slugging percentage. > [@](#): > > He’s 28th All-time in RBIs, are you seriously implying that he didn’t help his team score runs? I’ve never even suggested he did not help his team score runs. Of course he helped his team score runs. I’m not saying he wasn’t a good player. > [@](#): > > He’s 62nd on the all-time runs created list, while not a perfect stat, 45 of the guys ahead of him are in the hall and 8 are locks when they become eligible, one is Pete Rose. To say his BA hindered his ability to produce runs is simply wrong. I never said it did. His BA was about average for an outfielder of the time. It’s just not GREAT; his strengths are power, defense, and speed. His WEAKNESS is a lack of plate discipline. e.g. few walks. His batting average is middle of the road. You’re inventing arguments that haven’t been presented. > [@](#): > > I’d say he was spectacular before his knees were destroyed, and still very good afterwards. I’m not dogging you on the defense, just that the same guys who argue for Smith and Trammell based on defense will totally dismiss it when talking about non-SS players who hit for power. That was my point. I’m sure some guys will, but I will not; I think it’s a bonus for Dawson. It just doesn’t quite push him past the crowd for me, if for no other reason that it’s not obvious to me how it makes him any better than, say, Dwight Evans, who was also an excellent defensive outfielder, or Dale Murphy, who was too. > [@](#): > > Just for kicks I’ll paste in what [Jayson Stark said](http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/stark_jayson/1307338.html) about Dawson when he was put on the ballot (emphasis mine) Jayson Stark voted for Shannon Stewart in 2004. 🙂 > [@](#): > > Here’s [another column](http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/stark_jayson/1488642.html) by him in which he makes a case that the inflated stats of today have killed the greats from the 80s. I’m inclined to agree, based on the HOF balloting you’d think that hardly anyone who played in the 80s was any good. I’ve heard this argument before and I just don’t understand it at all. So Mike Schmidt, Dave Winfield, Robin Yount, Wade Boggs, Kirby Puckett, Paul Molitor, Ozzie Smith, Gary Carter, Eddie Murray, Nolan Ryan, Steve Carlton, George Brett et al., that’s not a good start? I mean, the BBWAA is still working through the 1980s; it’s kind of early to say they’re poorly represented. There are guys from the 1950s and 1960s still waiting to get in, like Ron Santo and Minnie Minoso. I don’t see how the 80s have been that hard done by. ---
**Author:** ![mikeargo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/858c86/32.png) [@mikeargo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mikeargo)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-hall-of-fame-time-again-vote-for-your-baseball-favorites/333788/77 "2005-12-07T23:06:17Z")
This is the year for Jim Rice (finally!). Joining him: Gossage, Trammell, and maybe Blyleven. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-hall-of-fame-time-again-vote-for-your-baseball-favorites/333788/78 "2005-12-07T23:51:42Z")
> [@RancidYakButterTeaParty](#): > > Dawson’s Lifetime Batting Average: .279 Trammell’s: .285 > > Slugging percentage: .482 .415 > > Strikeouts: 1,509 874 > > Hits 2,774 2,365 > > Fielding Percentage .983 .977 > > Dawson also played one more season than Trammell. I think these numbers show that they are very comparable as hitters. Dawson knocked in more runners, but Trammell was more consistent. Fielding percentages are very close, but Trammell’s position much more demanding. I would definitely give the edge to Trammell as a fielder. I don’t think you can say definitively (without bias) that Dawson was a better hitter and fielder than Trammell. Here’s a couple more: Dawson HRs 438 RBI 1591 Total Bases 4787 Trammell HRs 185 RBI 1003 Total Bases 3442 To say these guys are comparable hitters is obscene. If you want to make a case for Trammell thats fine, but he’s more similar to Ozzie Smith with a little better bat. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2005, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-hall-of-fame-time-again-vote-for-your-baseball-favorites/333788/79 "2005-12-08T00:04:25Z")
**RickJay** , quick question. Is Frank Thomas a HOFer? > [@RickJay](#): > > I’ve never even suggested he did not help his team score runs. Of course he helped his team score runs. I’m not saying he wasn’t a good player. In a earlier post you said: > [@RickJay](#): > > As to what he was “Required” to do, it is a hitter’s job to help his team score runs. the most important thing a player can do to help his team score runs is get on base. It doesn’t matter where you hit in the lineup. You can’t just dismiss this. I took that second quote as implying that Dawson was lacking in his ability to produce runs for his team. If that’s not the implication, that’s fine. But based on his Runs Created and RBI totals I think it’s abundantly clear that inspite of his batting average and on base percentages, he excelled at helping his team score runs. Seriously, if BA is such a major compenent to a players contribution to the team scoring runs how the hell did Dawson get so high up those run producing lists, company which almost totally consists of HOFer? Being a lifetime .279 hitter is pretty good, not great, but good…and it’s certainly not bad enough to dismiss all his other offensive accomplishments. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2005, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-hall-of-fame-time-again-vote-for-your-baseball-favorites/333788/80 "2005-12-08T00:16:11Z")
> [@jrfranchi](#): > > Gossage was more dominate than Blyleven. Blyleven is a good match for Jim Kaat, not a HOFer but a very good pitcher. Gossage was better at his position, perhaps; but a starter is everal times more important than a reliever. And [Blyleven](http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/blylebe01.shtml) was more similar to Don Sutton, Gaylord Perry, Fergie Jenkins, Tommy John, Robin Roberts and Tom Seaver. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-hall-of-fame-time-again-vote-for-your-baseball-favorites/333788.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-hall-of-fame-time-again-vote-for-your-baseball-favorites/333788.md?page=5)