Hall of Fame Poll: Andre Dawson

by Tom Dakers on Dec 1, 2009 2:18 AM EST in Fun Comment 6 comments

One of my childhood heros, Dawson had a heck of a career. 438 homers (36th all time) and 1591 RBI (34th all time), in a 21 year career, 11 with the Expos. He was Rookie of the Year in 1977 and NL MVP in 1987. 8 Gold Gloves, and 8 All-Star selections. He came up a little short on votes last year, appearing on 67% of the Writer's ballots. He had the quickest bat I've seen, but the knock against him is that he didn't take walks. His numbers don't look quite as impressive when you look back through the steroid era, but he was a heck of a player.

Poll

Would you vote Andre Dawson into the Hall of Fame?

Yes

114 votes

No

22 votes

136 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 6 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Dawson for me is the classic bubble guy; he had a very good, but not great career, in a team that was mostly an afterthought for the rest of baseball. More than any player, Dawson put Montreal on the map. He’s one of those guys you really need to judge in the context of his career and the league at the time, as opposed to his stats. Objectively, I think his number say ‘no’. Subjectively, impact should be important to the Hall of Fame, and some players aren’t easily qualified. I will happily admit that if I had the weight of a real vote, I likely wouldn’t choose Dawson. But, with should he be there, I’m inclined to think he should squeak in on the bottem rung, just out of sentimentality.

If Dawson ever gets in, he’ll continue to be one of the great arguement starters for years past; should he or shouldn’t he, and he’s one of the rare players that I think both sides are largely right.

by dexfarkin on Dec 1, 2009 2:42 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

i'm undecided

But where should he rank amongst centerfielders? His offense in center must be worth double what Rice did in LF. I know Rice is a low bar, but it’s really just Dawson’s walk rate that would keep him out of the Hall as a corner outfielder, so where is his bar as an 8-time Gold Glove (if that means anything) centerfielder.

I think I’ll pose a question to the historians at the battersbox.

by ayjackson on Dec 1, 2009 10:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Jim Rice

Has no business being in the Hall of Fame. Given a choice between the two, I’m voting for the Hawk every time.

by dexfarkin on Dec 1, 2009 11:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Rice is perhaps the lowest of the low bars

by Jevant on Dec 1, 2009 1:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hawk is a tough one

great player to watch and I have a soft spot for the two-way guys. I agree he is a substantially more deserving candidate than Rice, but I don’t want to vote in everyone who fits that description.

If Dawson is kept out, I’d argue it’s not because of a flaw in his game (though obviously he had them) but because the turf in Montreal ruined his knees and accelerated his decline substantially.

"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman

by hugo on Dec 1, 2009 3:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

re: the Montreal turf

It would be interesting to see the aging curves for outfielders (particularly in centre) who played on bad turf. Like catchers, whose position is obviously hard on their knees, outfielders on bad turf might be entitled to some bonus credit for having their careers shortened due to factors outside their control. Normally I wouldn’t fudge numbers to make up for injury, but if the injury is caused by a bad field (so anyone else playing there would suffer the same), it would make sense.

"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"

by jessef on Dec 2, 2009 3:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs