Why no Hawk but lots of Rice?

artistlost

With the 2008 class about to be announced I was really wondering what everyone thought about the love for Jim Rice (atleast in talks) and not so much for Andre Dawson? Am I missing something? Looking at the career stats and the time frame Dawson was well above Rice and most others. Why no love?

mathew

ROCKDJRW

Blame Canada! Dawsons best years (minus 1987) were with the Expos. Who watched the Expos?? I think if Rock Raines started with the Yankees or Red Sox he would be in as well.

Leiascards

Main reason is Rice played for the Red Sox and Dawson spent his career in Montreal and Chicago.

artistlost

Ok...granted that Dawson played in small markets. But the voters are sports writers and they are given complete packages on each players and see everything. So why should it matter where the players played?

To small market players credit...usually there is only enough money for one maybe two star players on the team where we all know that Boston and New York can afford to field an All-Star team.


The main numbers that stick out to me is career 400 HRs and 300 Stolen Bases. Only Bonds and Mays have more.

mathew

Leiascards

It matters alot Rice was also part of those Sox Teams of the late 70s. There are many players that come from big markets that should not be in there but are, just as there are several who come from smaller markets that should be but aren't. Ron Santo and Tim Raines comes to mind. Harold Baines would probaly be in the mix had he played for New York or Boston.

Rice was also considered to be very fan friendly, Dawson on the other hand had his moments.

BobaFett72

I think both had great careers, but Rice had a huge drop off after age 36, and was the master of hitting into double plays. he was a god for 3 or 4 seasons and had a very solid career. quite a few folks on the board crticize him for crushing the ball at Fenway and batting much weaker on the road.

I agree that if Raines played on a marquee team he would be getting lots of votes.

shagrotn77

I'm totally with ya, Matt. I think Rice and Dawson are equally deserving. Heck, I might even give the edge to Dawson because he did it longer and had some great wheels until the turf in Montreal took its toll. There's probably more love for Rice than Dawson at the moment simply because he's been waiting longer to get in. I absolutely believe Rice will get in this year along with Goose, and Dawson will get in next year, along with Rickey and (hopefully) Blyleven. The dearth of big name first-year eligibles in the upcoming years will no doubt help some of these deserving players finally get their due.

If I had it my way, Dawson would be going in this year with Goose and Rice. But a jump from 56.7% of the votes to 75% would pretty much be unprecedented, so I'm trying to be realistic.

WinPitcher

I think if Rock Raines started with the Yankees or Red Sox he would be in as well.


Rockdjrw that would be tuff since this is Rock's first yr. of elgibility.


As for Hawk, his stats look so much better now when compared to the roid users. I think he may very well get in.


Steve

artistlost

<< <i>As for Hawk, his stats look so much better now when compared to the roid users. I think he may very well get in. >>



Steve...I hope you are right. I was just looking at some stats again and he is looking better and better with each big name of the 80/90s that comes out as being juiced.

mathew

markj111

Why no love for Dawson? Start with his .323 career on-base %. His would be by far the lowest for an outfielder. I would not vote for Dawson or Rice (productive career too short).

I would vote for Raines.

artistlost

OK...i know about the low OB% but is this really enough to keep him out? Every other stat lines up.

mathew

TomGshotput

Both are below already established Hall-of-Fame standards

The writers are certainly free to vote for them, but it would most certainly be lowering the Hall-of-Fame standards

WinPitcher

The standards are already low, the inclusion of Dawson and Rice would elevate them IMO.


Steve

WinPitcher

nevermind. I thought we were talking about Rice.


sorry.


back to Rice, he did have a 16 yr career in which 14 of those years were productive.

Steve

onlyanumber

Don't forget to add in to the mix on Dawson that his '87 MVP was for a really bad Chicago team. Writers have always downplayed that MVP award...

TomGshotput

<< <i>The standards are already low, the inclusion of Dawson and Rice would elevate them IMO.
Steve >>



There are leftfielders better than Rice and centerfielders better than Dawson not in the Hall-of-Fame

How many from those positions worse than either of them have the writers voted in? Only ones with any case would be Brock, Kiner, Medwick in LF and perhaps Puckett in CF, but I would still argue strongly that all of them were better than Rice and Dawson

So bottom line is that there are better players not in the Hall-of-Fame and no players better than them at their position have been voted in by the writers so both are certainly bad choices and undeserving

DeutscherGeist

A .323 OB%? With a stat like that, it really makes you wonder how valuable he really was. OB% is a very revealing stat. If his running ability, power and hitting were anything special, he would have a higher OB%.

A low batting average is not a problem, since the OBP would offer a broader perspective of a player's true value. Many big boppers have low BAs, but they do draw a lot of walks, so their OBP is high, which does make them truely valuable.

The growing list of Roid users do make Dawson, Rice and Mattingly look better. However, Dawson's low OBP makes him look insubstantial--a lot of fluffy stats, but nothing that says he was a great player.

Jim Rice was a Red Sox great, but his reliance on Fenway is something that's a turn off. Its not his fault he was playing in Fenway, but it calls into question how good he really was. At least Wade Boggs proved that he can still bat high even if Fenway was no longer his home field. When Yankee stadium became his home in his later years, he studied the field and became a better hitter at Yankee stadium as a Yankee than when he was a Red Sox player. I don't know if Rice could have done the same. That is my issue.

Don Mattingly was one of only a handful of players that led MLB in OPS+ at least twice. That is the single most telling stat in all of baseball because it really does take into account any ball park advantage/disadvantage and measures multiple dimensions of a player's true value. Sandy Koufax had the benefit of Dodgers Stadium to help his stats, otherwise, he led MLB in ERA+ only once. Not taking anything away from Koufax, just presenting something in a new perspective. Many try and argue away the MVP for Dawson in 1987, so why not argue one for Mattingly in 1986. Clemens edged out Mattingly. If the allegations against Clemens holds true, then we can at least say there was a character issue with Clemens--something no one would say against Mattingly. We are allowed to consider character for HOF voting.

It seems that every year, one has to vote someone in. I think Goose or Raines are worthy enough. No need to talk about Dawson, Rice or Blyleven yet.

DonnieD

<< <i>Both are below already established Hall-of-Fame standards

The writers are certainly free to vote for them, but it would most certainly be lowering the Hall-of-Fame standards >>



Below already established standards? Sure they are below Aaron, Ruth, Mays, etc., but they are above many currently in the HOF. Look how they compare with these HOF outfielders.


HOF’er..................OPS+
+-+------------+----+---+
Andre Dawson......119
Jim Rice.................128

Lloyd Waner...........99
Tommy McCarthy...102
Max Carey.............107
Freddie Lindstrom.109
Lou Brock..............109
Richie Ashburn......111
Sam Crawford.......112
Harry Hooper........114
Robin Yount..........115
Heinie Manush......121
Kirby Puckett.........124
Dave Winfield........130
Billy Williams..........133
Duke Snider...........140

Now obviosly there are other numbers and factors that come into play but OPS+ is a pretty good guage. I have heard there are better players not in the HOF at their respective postitions and the only one that I can come up with that is currently eligible is Albert Belle (who should be in as well). Who is a better OF that isn't in? Also, in response to the first post of the thread, I am a huge Dawson fan but Jim Rice was a better hitter than Andre Dawson was. Andre may get the edge as an overall player but Rice was better offensively.

Cokin75

Dawson should definitely be in. The man hit 400 homers when it meant something. Won an MVP and was 2nd twice. Stole 300 some bases. What gets him over the top in my mind was that for the first half of his career, he was probably the best outfielder of his generation....won a ton of gold gloves....and one of the best arms ever. Plus the guy is a class act to boot.

I think stat geeks are overrating OBP somewhat in this case. Andre didn't take many walks, but he didn't strike out at a bad clip either.

In my mind the guy was heads and shoulders above Rice, who really didn't do much after 83 or so.

If I had a vote this year, I'd go with Dawson and Gossage.

Estil

I still think every year that passes w/o Blyleven going in is a joke. I'm hoping but not all that optimistic that this will be his year.

BobaFett72

"I still think every year that passes w/o Blyleven going in is a joke. I'm hoping but not all that optimistic that this will be his year"

I concur.

He should go in before, Raines, Rice or Dawson, in a heartbeat.

Estil

Indeed, his stats (3701 K's, 287 wins, and especially 60 shutouts; I doubt today's pitchers could get more than 10) speak for themselves. I mean, every eligible 3000 hits guy got in on the first ballot, why shouldn't 3000K pitchers?

artistlost

I'm on the fence about him...no CY awards, 1 20 game win season and a as many losses as wins. I know he played on some not so good teams but so did Jenkins.

mathew

markj111

Dawson is 348th all time in OPS, per baseball-reference.com

lsutigers1973

"Rice was also considered to be very fan friendly"

WTH!?!? Rice was an A-hole which is part of the reason he is not in and I personally hope he never gets in. Remember as a young teen seeing him play and never in batting practice or the game toss an extra ball in teh stands. This was back in the days when everyone signed autos and yet never saw him sign a single one. Plus, sportwriters hated him like they have Bonds for most of his career.

jmbkb4

Who is Jim Rice?

BobaFett72

"I'm on the fence about him...no CY awards, 1 20 game win season and a as many losses as wins. "

Were you talking about Nolan Ryan? No cy Youngs, 2, 20 win seasons, 292 LOSSES 3rd all time baby. I guess im on the fence about HIM being in the hall too. LOL. Nolan played on some truly sucky teams as did Bert. If Bert had 10 less wins on his total but three 20 win seasons would that make him more appealing?

Im looking at his total numbers; 26th ALL time in wins, top 5? all time in K's. that my friend is HOF material.

artistlost

<< <i>"I'm on the fence about him...no CY awards, 1 20 game win season and a as many losses as wins. "

Were you talking about Nolan Ryan? No cy Youngs, 2, 20 win seasons, 292 LOSSES 3rd all time baby. I guess im on the fence about HIM being in the hall too. LOL. Nolan played on some truly sucky teams as did Bert. If Bert had 10 less wins on his total but three 20 win seasons would that make him more appealing?

Im looking at his total numbers; 26th ALL time in wins, top 5? all time in K's. that my friend is HOF material. >>



Alright...fair call on Blyleven...but I will say this...Nolan Ryan vs Blyleven? not close in my book and a lot of others too.

mathew

Hoopster

Rice wasn't considered a friendly type player. Funny how time goes by and perspectives change...

Rice and Dawson are both excellent players, and unfortunately for them they played in the most competitive era in the history of baseball...an era that saw the highest combination of the number of available men to compete against, and the highest level of baseball ability among those men(based on advancing baseball science and the number of participants in the sport, as opposed to the thinly spread era of now).

Had they been lucky enough to play in environements that mirrored that of 2001, or of the 1930's, their abilities would have shown much brighter when compared to their peers...as opposed to how it shines now. Unfortunatley for them, they simply had more elite players to contend against in their era, making them look inferior for historical purposes.

The baseball world is not ready for this aspect though, so I will leave it at that.


In common terms, Dawson's OB% is the real drag on his true baseball value. Even in his 1987 MVP season, IN THE BEST HITTERS PARK IN THE LEAGUE, his OB% was below average(not counting hitting pitchers)! He isn't quite as good as some of his counting totals suggest...thoguh he was excellent!

I like Rice. While he had other OFers who actually had more value to their careers...TWO OF THEM FROM HIS OWN TEAM...I like his short peak, and his ability to play everyday.

The problem still rings that he had two OF teammtes that were better than he, and neither one of them are in the Hall. One of which actually had a better peak, and more 'fame'...Fred Lynn.

There lies the rub. Unless the writers can understand the dynamics of why players from the Pre War era, and players from the thinned down double expansionwatered down era of now, shine unproportionately higher than their peers....then guys like Rice or Dawson won't garner merit to election.

grote15

Blyleven and Raines are more deserving than either Rice or Dawson, IMO. If Blyleven hadn't pitched for god-awful teams, he'd have won well over 300 games...

TomGshotput

<< <i>
Below already established standards? Sure they are below Aaron, Ruth, Mays, etc., but they are above many currently in the HOF. Look how they compare with these HOF outfielders. >>



More than half of your list were from Veterans Committee, not the writers. Those two groups have huge differences in standards. To use foolish decisions by one group to justify how the other group should vote is absolutely, without question the definition of lowered standards

Of the others, one was a shortstop (Yount), one was perhaps the worst corner outfielder voted in by the writers (Brock), the others OPS+ are all higher that Dawson and Rice. Also, Puckett's OPS+ is barely above Rice, but did some great things in the Word Series, and was a great defensive player. Williams, Winfield, and Snider and far enough ahead (and for Williams and Winfield with very long careers) to belong in the Hall-of-Fame



<< <i>


HOF’er..................OPS+
+-+------------+----+---+
Andre Dawson......119
Jim Rice.................128

Lloyd Waner...........99
Tommy McCarthy...102
Max Carey.............107
Freddie Lindstrom.109
Lou Brock..............109
Richie Ashburn......111
Sam Crawford.......112
Harry Hooper........114
Robin Yount..........115
Heinie Manush......121
Kirby Puckett.........124
Dave Winfield........130
Billy Williams..........133
Duke Snider...........140

Now obviosly there are other numbers and factors that come into play but OPS+ is a pretty good guage. I have heard there are better players not in the HOF at their respective postitions and the only one that I can come up with that is currently eligible is Albert Belle (who should be in as well). Who is a better OF that isn't in? Also, in response to the first post of the thread, I am a huge Dawson fan but Jim Rice was a better hitter than Andre Dawson was. Andre may get the edge as an overall player but Rice was better offensively. >>

WinPitcher

More than half of your list were from Veterans Committee, not the writers.



ummmm I'm not so sure about that, I think it is more like 8 were voted in by the writers and 6 via the vets.

Steve


Edited to add: actually it is 7 to 7 in regards to the list. However, with that said,

in the early years of voting by the VC guys like waner and crawford got in that way and most certaintly deserved it.


To say 'more then half' is just not correct. Granted the VC in later yr.s dropped it down a notch but guys like Cap Anson were inducted via the VC.

TomGshotput

Does this mean you agree Rice and Dawson are below the standards set so far by the writers?

(More than half, eight out of 14 of those players listed were from the Veteran's Committee: Waner in 67, McCarthy in 46, Carey in 61, Lindstrom in 76, Ashburn in 95, Crawford 57, Hooper in 71, Manush 64. That is according to both baseballreference.com and baseballhalloffame.org What sources were you using?)

DonnieD

I didn't realize BBWAA selections were what you were referring to, I was looking at "HOF standards". Yount played nearly as many games in the OF as SS.

Who are the LF better than Rice and CF/RF better than Dawson that are eligible and not in the HOF other than Belle?