Andre Dawson - Should He be in the Hall of Fame?

reiny81

Please Discuss

Writer11

I'm Canadian and I always thought the Hawk was a great talent, but I don't think he's a Hall of Famer. His career OBP is below average, his career batting average is average, and aside from 1987, he was just a very good player.

ArnyVee

Very solid player and, in my opinion, deserves to be in the Hall.

1373 Runs, 2774 Hits (almost 'magic' number of 3,000), 503 doubles, 98 triples, 438 homers, 1591 rbis, 314 stolen bases with a lifetime .279 batting average.

Rookie of the Year '77
Top 25 MVP Voting in '79, '80, '81 (2nd), '82, '83 (2nd), '87 (MVP), '88, '90, '91
8-time All Star ('81, '82, '83, '87, '88, '89, '90, '91)
4 Silver Slugger Awards ('80, '81, '83, '87)
8-time Gold Glove Winner ('80, '81, '82, '83, '84, '85, '87, '88)

Top Ten in Batting Average 5 times ('80, '82, '83, '88 3rd, '90)
Top Five in Runs 4 times ('80, '81, '82, '83)
Top Ten in Hits 6 times ('80, '81, '82 3rd, '83 1st, '87, '88 2nd)
Top Five in Doubles 3 times ('80, '82, '83)
Top Ten in Triples 4 times ('78, '79 2nd, '83 3rd, '88)
Top Ten in Homers 9 times ('78, '81 2nd, '83 3rd, '85, '87 1st, '88, '89, '90, '91, '92)
Top Ten in RBIs 8 times ('79, '81, '83 2nd, '85, '87 1st, '90, '91, '92)
Top Ten in Steals 3 times ('79, '81, '82)
Top Ten in Slugging 8 times, Top Ten in Total Bases 10 times

9th All Time in Sacrifice Flies
22nd All Time in Extra-Base Hits
24th All Time in Total Bases
29th All Time in RBIs
35th All Time in Homers
42nd All Time in Doubles
45th All Time in Hits

Not too shabby, you think?

MantleMarisFordBerra

I've always felt The Hawk should be in, remember he spent many years ruining his knee playing on astro turf, he was still able top put up some serious numbers, and had a GREAT arm from right field. He just always seemed like HOF material to me.

dallasactuary

I wouldn't lose any sleep over the outcome either way. Dawson was a fine player with several deserved Gold Gloves and one laughably undeserved MVP. He is very comparable to Tony Perez who is in the HOF, although he more or less defines the bottom for people in the Hall for their hitting. Dawson's fielding makes him a little better than that. For folks concerned about "diluting" the HOF, Dawson would certainly do that - he was much worse than the average HOFer - but he doesn't lower the standards any further than they already are.

RipublicaninMass

Didn't Dawson throw a runner out from left field.....at FIRST BASE??? I think I remeber reading this on the back of a card once ???

MPeter

Did he win any championships? Is he in the top five in any category? Does he have 3000 hits? They have to start being a little bit more picky with the Hall of Fame or the significance of it will be gone. It's kind of like Little League baseball now........even the losing teams get trophies!!

Writer11

Andre Dawson's career On Base Percentage was .323.

For comparison purposes, here are the career OBPs of some other players:

Chet Lemon .355
Amos Otis .343
Andre Dawson .323
Dave Kingman .302
Buddy Biancalana .261
Mario Mendoza .245

I think you can rack up a good long line of stats for almost any player who has played 15+ major league seasons. To me, Dawson is just not a Hall of Fame worthy hitter. You can also argue that he won his last couple of Gold Gloves for his reputation, rather than his fielding accomplishments in those seasons.

reiny81

There is only one player besides Dawson with at least 300 homers and 300 steals, and that is Barry Bonds. Andre Dawson is the posterboy for guys who have been hurt by the so-called Steroid Era. When he retired in '96 400 homers, which he has, was considered a leadpipe cinch for the hall of fame. The only guy at the time with 400 homers who was not in was Dave Kingman who hit .238 lifetime. The only reason Dawson is no longer a gimme is because of the homer binge of the Steroid Era. With the explosion in the number of guys who have hit 400+ homers it no longer has the significance it once did. As a result Dawson is under-appreciated.

Writer11

<< <i>There is only one player besides Dawson with at least 300 homers and 300 steals, and that is Barry Bonds. Andre Dawson is the posterboy for guys who have been hurt by the so-called Steroid Era. When he retired in '96 400 homers, which he has, was considered a leadpipe cinch for the hall of fame. The only guy at the time with 400 homers who was not in was Dave Kingman who hit .238 lifetime. The only reason Dawson is no longer a gimme is because of the homer binge of the Steroid Era. With the explosion in the number of guys who have hit 400+ homers it no longer has the significance it once did. As a result Dawson is under-appreciated. >>



I respect your opinion. I sort of agree with your point about the steroid era, however, there are a few other players with 300 HRS and 300 SBs --- Willie Mays, Bobby Bonds, Steve Finley are three off the top of my head.

Axtell

Dawson had a great career.

Not a hall of famer.

One home run title (and 3 more top 5 finishes), 2 top 5 BA finishes, 5 years of BA over .300, as was noted, a career .323 OBP.

What is this fascination people have with wanting to induct people who had good years and played forever? The guy never dominated, he's not a hall of famer.

Compiling stats over a career without ever being dominant for any period of time is not a hall of famer.

Please stop. If he wasn't hall worthy in his first year of eligibility, he's surely not worthy now.

stevek

I think all players named "Andre" should automatically be enshrined in the Hall of Fame.

gregmo32

Reiny81,

Let me be the first to say, "Welcome to the boards!"

The best way I can answer your question is something like this:

It always seemed to me that Dawson was on his way to the HOF while he was playing. I agree with the line of thinking that if he were to get in he would be one of the lesser/borderline guys, and would not have a problem with that. But when I look at the complete statistical record, in addition to the categories generally looked at, I would not have much of a beef if he did not get in.

I wonder if a good question might be: Who is better than Andre Dawson who is not in the HOF and is eligible?
(By the way, that is not a loaded question, but one that just came to me...)

dallasactuary

<< <i>I wonder if a good question might be: Who is better than Andre Dawson who is not in the HOF and is eligible?
(By the way, that is not a loaded question, but one that just came to me...) >>



I will offer myself up for scorn and ridicule with my (partial) list, excluding pitchers:

Dick Allen
Bobby Bonds
Ken Boyer
Jack Clark
Darrell Evans
Bill Freehan
Steve Garvey
Bobby Grich
Keith Hernandez
Minnie Minoso
Al Oliver
Dave Parker
Tim Raines
Ron Santo
Ted Simmons
Ken Singleton
Joe Torre
Alan Trammell
Jimmy Wynn

I'm sure there are more if I thought about it longer. I will say this, he was much better than Jim Rice; I think I could name close to 100 people better than Rice not in the HOF.

gregmo32

It's funny how some players SEEM like they will be HOFers and don't end up being close when the voting comes. I sure seem to remember Tim Rainess SEEMING like a future HOFer almost his whole prime, and then, poof...

DeutscherGeist

Dawson is very close in getting voted in, more so than Steve Garvey and Don Mattingly.


After a few more years, we will have a better overall context of what Dawson really meant to the game. He played in the 80s for the most part. We have to see if we put in too many 80s era players or not. Sure, the 80s had more teams than the 40s, so it won't be hard to believe that there will be more 80s era players in the HOF than 40s era players after all is said and done.

Certainly the careers of Dawson, Raines, K Hernandez, Garvey, Rice and Mattingly need to be looked at in an overall context. I think a player is more dominant who got a bunch of top 5 MVP votes than a player who won it once and could never even break the top 20 later. Dawson's second place finish in 1987 is a head scratcher, but we can take that into account in HOF voting. The same with Mattingly's miss in 1986 to Roger Clemens.

I would not lose sleep over Dawson going in the HOF, but we have to keep in mind that we can't give the green light to too many 80s players.

Boggs, Gwynn, Ripken, Henderson, Brett and Sandberg certainly form the cream of the crop of the 80s era without giving a second thought. They dominated their positions without doubt. Is there room for the likes of Hernandez, Raines, Trammell, Mattingly, Rice, Murphy.....maybe.


Joe Torre had an excellent career as a player, but was not quite HOF worthy. His successful managerial tenure with the Yankees makes him go over the top. I doubt he will not be in the HOF when he retires. Mattingly might get a similar fate--this is why I think Donny baseball can get in within our lifetime. If Dawson can do something equally as noble, then I think his chances remain good too.

greencrow

Happy 60th to The Hawk!

MGLICKER

Dawson was a highly respected coin collector.

markj111

What difference does it make? He's in. I would not have voted for him. His carrer OPS+ is tied for 381st.

grote15

<< <i>What difference does it make? He's in. I would not have voted for him. His carrer OPS+ is tied for 381st. >>



He wasn't in when this thread was started.

MGLICKER

<< <i>

<< <i>What difference does it make? He's in. I would not have voted for him. His carrer OPS+ is tied for 381st. >>



He wasn't in when this thread was started. >>



Nor was Ty Cobb!

ashabby

Yes