Do you think Andre Dawson belongs in the Hall of Fame?

Question

A good friend of mine is a Cubs fan and he thinks that Andre Dawson belongs in the HOF.

It's always fun to debate who belongs in the Hall. What are the best reasons he should and should not be in?

Answer 1

Yes!

When reviewing Dawson's stats, keep in mind some simple truths:

1. He was a hell of a defensive player, winning Gold Gloves in 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988.

2. He was a seven-time All-Star (1981, 1982, 1983, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991).

3. He didn't use steroids (hence Ryne Sandberg's Hall Of Fame speech, and the fact that Dawson worked his *** off to become a good player).

4. He won a handful of major awards, (Rookie Of The Year in 1977, MVP in 1987)

5. He stats were top notch with comparable players of his era.

6. There are lesser players with lesser stats in the Hall (Lloyd Waner anyone? How about some of the players inducted between 1941-1976?)

7. Yeah, he played on crappy teams. But so did Ernie Banks, Billy Williams, Ryne Sandberg, etc.

Let him into the Hall Of Fame!

Answer 2

Not only does Andre Dawson deserve to be in the baseball hall of fame, but the fact he is not in the Hall is a serious injustice.

Hawk was a consisitant 30 Hr/90 RBI man for many years when those numbers meant something. He also was a great glove and he had some speed on the basepaths. Hopefully with the 90's being exposed as a chemically induced era, he will get his due.

Answer 3

i does no longer call it a great mistake. There are worse gamers in there and probable some greater deserving gamers no longer in there. Take Dave Parker working example. His stats have been extremely similar to Dawson's. They the two have an MVP award and that they the two had a rocket for an arm. Dawson has the sting in HR (438-339), Gold Gloves (8-3), and All celeb appearances (8-7) yet Parker has the sting in Batting standard (.290-.279), appropriate 5 MVP Finishes (5-3), and individual Triple Crown type titles (3-2). basically Dawson had greater means yet Parker grew to become right into a greater valuable hitter. i do no longer comprehend why Dawson have been given a lot help for the hall yet Parker did no longer. Parker barley have been given 20% of the vote. Plus he had a cooler nickname (Cobra vs Hawk)

Answer 4

Five years ago I would have said no based on the numbers currently being put up. But looking back through steroid-tinted glasses at the last 15 years I would have to admit that Dawson's numbers stack up pretty well in comparison with others in his time frame. Another reason is that when you played the Cubs, he was the main person the pitchers were worried about. He made other teams have to plan for his impact on the game and that says a lot.

Answer 5

No, not enough dominant seasons, outside of 1987. Career totals aren't impressive enough either, if just considering career numbers. Similar and not much better than Jim Rice or Dave Parker. However, weirder things have happened before, like Gary Carter making it, and Blyleven still not in. The important and undebatable fact is that 'Hawk' Dawson was a great player and could hit for power and steal bases, as well as maintain a good batting average. He also had a cannon for an arm. Hope this is a good answer~

Answer 6

He is one of those borderline players. He's got some great stats, but also some weaknesses in his game. I think he should be in. He's one of the few players with over 400 HRs, 300 SB and 1500 RBI. He was one of the leaders of the Expos and Cubs in the 80's. He was always the type of player that you want to see out on the field because of his work ethic and attitude.

Answer 7

Yes, I think so.
He was MVP in 1987, playing for the last-place Cubs. Anybody who has to carry the Cubs deserves some kind of recognition.

Answer 8

You know he had great character and played well. He was solid. You can argue he should be in the hall but IMHO he didn't put up the type of numbers of somebody who deserves to be in the hall. But I take the argument that since he was such a solid player that he can be put in. I don't really mind if he makes it or not. But he certainly should go down in history as a class act whether he makes the hall or not.

Answer 9

He should be in the hall of fame as should Jim Rice.

Answer 10

YES

HE SHOULD BE IN THE HALL OF FAME IN THE NEXT
3-5 YEARS FROM NOW.....