How is Andre (The Hawk) Dawson not in the Hall of Fame? I just don't get it, his stats were amazing during

Question

his 21 seasons from 1976-1996. Dawson played for the Expos, Cubs, Red Sox and Marlins and posted career numbers of: 2,774 hits, 503 Doubles, 98 Triples, 438 HR's, 1,591 RBI's, and .279 BA. He was the NL MVP in 1987 and was a 8 time gold glove winner and 8 time all-star, and NL Rookie of the Year in 1977. Ex-team-mate and HOF'er Ryne Sandberg said during his induction speech in 2005 that, "No player in baseball history worked harder, suffered more or did it better than Andre Dawson," Sandberg said of the rifle-armed outfielder known as "The Hawk." Sandberg continued, "He's the best I've ever seen. I watched him win an MVP for a last-place team in 1987 [with the Cubs], and it was the most unbelievable thing I've ever seen in baseball." Sandberg concluded with, "He did it the right way, the natural way, and he did it in the field and on the bases and in every way, and I hope he will stand up here someday." In 2007, The Hawk got 56.7% of the votes, falling short of the 75%. 2008 looks

to be the year that Andre Dawson, Jim Rice and Goose Gossage will finally make it in, because no other noteable players are due to get in next year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Dawson#Hall_of_Fame_Candidacy

http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/dawsoan01.shtml

Answer 1

Preface: I pay more attention to seasons than to career totals. If one cannot grasp this concept, you may as well skip the rest of this post.

Dawson was a very good player for a long time, but he rarely achieved greatness. At the plate, he only had one really great season (1981) and a few other very good ones (1983, 1988, 1990). Note that none of those were his 1987 NL MVP year -- which was when he had his most impressive numbers, but that was the notorious "rabbit ball" year (before steroids, youngsters, we blamed the ball) when EVERYONE put up big power stats. Fine, throw in his MVP season, that's still only five standout years of 21. That's really not Hall class performance.

Defense, yes, Hawk was good, but it takes legendary D in the outfield to make the case. Being good with the glove is a strong bonus point, but not enough to make up the needed ground.

Postseason play matters a lot less than many people perceive it does, and this actually works in Dawson's favor, as his two trips to October are decidedly lackluster.

Okay, fine, let's turn to his career stats. His career OBP is .323 -- which is worse, FAR worse (about -20 points), than any primary outfielder in the Hall today. The number is not as important as what it tells us about how he played his game -- Dawson made a lot of outs. That isn't an automatic bad thing, all players make lots of outs, but he cost his teams a great deal with his plate impatience. His high season of walks was 44; his best seasonal OBP was .365, he only cracked .350 two other times, and sometimes dropped below .300. That is not a Hall-class hitting performance.

The honoraria that he accumulated -- All-Star selections, eight Gold Gloves, the MVP, the 1977 NL ROY, some Silver Sluggers -- is the right amount of recognition for a good, sometimes very good, rarely great player. The Hall is not suffering without the Hawk's plaque adorning the walls.

For all that, his ballot returns have been reaching big numbers, over 50%, and he's got enough years left (nine ballots before the BBWAA) that he probably will win election some winter soon. And that's fine. Just don't think that injustice is done if he never does get the bronze.

Answer 2

I _hope_ Larry Walker makes it. Such a chill guy and a hard worker. If anyone, he deserves consideration for good glove work, a cannon, and generally a good job of getting on base. Galarraga does NOT deserve consideration for the Hall. In fact, if not for his years at Coors, no one would have a clue who he is. Even with his excessive number inflation while in Colorado, he finished his career batting under .300. By contrast, Walker (who basically played out his prime years in Colorado) hit .280 in his years NOT with the Rockies. Yes, it can be argued (and quite justifiably, I might add) that Walker would have hit ~.290 if he played somewhere other than Coors. But, the fact remains, he put up consistently excellent numbers over his career. As for Dawson... I really do not like him getting in. First Jim Rice, now Andre Dawson... what statement are the voters making? This isn't the "Hall of Mediocrity"... it's the Hall of FAME. Also, he's not going in as an Expo... I'm fairly certain of that. I imagine that Walker _might_ opt to enter as an Expo (being Canadian and all), but it's unlikely that he gets in. With eligibility in 2011, Walker will need to contend with the fact that Alomar gets in next year. Also, Jeff Bagwell is on the ballot as a first timer for 2011, as well. If Walker doesn't get in by 2012, it's unlikely he gets in at all. I can't see him beating out the likes of Bonds, Glavine, Maddux, Clemens, Johnson, Griffey, ARod, Chipper, et al, so 2012 is likely his last chance to get in by the voters... otherwise, it's Veteran's Committee... and we all know those snobs favour their teammates... and without many Expos or Rockies in the HoF, Walker has little support. (Which, for what it's worth, is a travesty, as he was a great ballplayer.) So, sadly, I think neither makes it... and if Walker does, it will be a Veteran's Committee selection. It's like the voters are intentionally picking crappy folks because they're unsure of which Hall of Fame caliber players have legitimately acquired numbers. A part of me feels that Rice and Dawson were voted in simply to spite McGwire. As for Alomar... he has some of the best numbers for a second baseman... EVER. Definitely makes me feel that the system is broken when Andre Dawson and Jim Rice get in, while Robbie Alomar is on the outside looking in.

Answer 3

Even as a Cubs fan, Dawson doesn't quite make the cut in my book. He has good career numbers, but none of them are the kind that ensure election.
Sandberg, a nice guy, was a TERRIBLE baseball analyst, and team-mates are expected to say nice things about their buds. I don't think Ryno's evaluation should be taken too seriously here.


If it's comparison to Rice, I think that's a mistake. Rice, by the way didn't dominate in runs scored, on-base percentage,
doubles, etc. He did manage to lead the league in such categories as outs, ground-into-double-plays, and strike-outs.

Rice was not as dominant as Reggie Jackson or George Brett or Mike Schmidt; neither was the Hawk.

Addendum: Rice lead the league in strike-outs in 1976, and he was top ten five other times. Contemporaries who lead the league in positive offensive categories more often than he did include Mike Schmidt, Pete Rose, Tony Gwynn, Rod Carew, Tony Oliva, George Brett, and Reggie Jackson.

Answer 4

he has "good" numbers but not outstanding numbers; he never hit one of the great benchmarks...3000 hits, nope; 500 home runs, nope. Just like Rice he was a good player and had a couple of great seasons but he is just shy of a Holl of Fame guy to me, he stayed on for too long to pad his numbers, he was a shell of himself with the Red Sox and Marlins. His 1987 season was great but then after that he did not have the same effect, 89 was sa decent season but that was the end of seeing the true Dawson.

He could get in this year for just hte reason that you say, not a great crop but I would be surprised, I think Goose gets in but Andre and Jim only see the Hall of Fame if they buy a ticket.

Answer 5

The key phrase that everyone misses when these stars get passed over is "dominates his position for at least a decade in which he participates".

As good as Dawson, Rice, et al, were, they did not DOMINATE their position. There were a ton of talented outfielders in the late 70s, and throughout the 80s. Even though they racked up great numbers, none of them redefined their position like Ozzie Smith, Mike Schmidt or any of the others that DID go in from their era.

Answer 6

When did Jim Rice ever lead the league in strike outs? He had led in double plays, which was a combination of him hitting very hard ground balls and the Red Sox generally using lead-off and top of the order hitter who were very, very slow. He had four two hundred hit seasons and hit just a few points below .300 for his career. For the ten years of his prime, he leads all AL batter in virtually all offensive categories.

Answer 7

Andre Dawson deserves the Hall, but he lacked support from the writers, who are nitwits. If one of the media favorites like Ken Griffey, Jr. or Chipper Jones or someone had his stats, they would be in.

I have to say, though, that if Jim Rice did not dominate stats for 10 years, WHO DID? No one compared to his dominance during his highlight years. He led the league in every offensive stat except batting title. No one DURING HIS YEARS OF DOMINANCE dominated more than he did!! He belongs, too, with a bullet.

Answer 8

He was good, but in terms of evaluating his quality, a .323 on base percentage for an outfielder is really not good enough. A very good player and a true class act, but he has that one gaping hole in his resume.

Answer 9

maybe he will eventually recieve that honarable mention the commitee eventually gives the "deserving" players.

His numbers arent good enough,

Keep flying Hawk, keep flying.