If only one of them can be a hall-of-famer, which one do you choose? Why? Thanks.
2007-11-01 21:40:54 · 14 answers · asked by PearApple 7 in Sports ➔ Baseball
It's very interesting because some people think Dawson is better by far, and some people think McGriff hands down.
2007-11-03 16:10:19 · update #1
I would go for the Hawk, though Crime Dog was one of my favorite players, Dawson was a complete player, he could hit for power, drive in runs, had great speed till his knees went bad and had a cannon for an arm and a deadly glove. He had the misfortune for playing for also rans in his carrer, mainly Montreal and Chicago, McGriff was the quintessential good ball player..power , rbis and played a steady 1B and was a quiet clubhouse leader. I would pick Dawson over McGriff, but personally I would like to see both in
2007-11-01 22:30:36 · answer #1 · answered by allenmontana 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I am not sure either one is deserving, they were both good players that had a few "great" seasons but to me they were never the marquee guy for extended periods, one MVP for Dawson should help his cause, 8 Gold Gloves does not hurt but McGriff got the ring, although with McGriff he was a meanderer; he seem to always be on the move to a different team. MCGriff was a fan favorite no matter what city but not a HOF Player...I would put him in just ahead of Dawson.
2007-11-02 10:33:47 · answer #2 · answered by bdough15 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a false choice: neither should be in the HOF. They both have absurdly low Black Ink scores for consideration and neither blows anyone away with other major tests. McGriff was never the best in the majors at 1B, and Dawson was really not the best for long enough.
I loved Dawson as a player, but he shouldn't be in Cooperstown just because he was great for a little while.
2007-11-02 19:15:37 · answer #3 · answered by Bucky 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both outstanding ball player. If it was in my control I'd put both of them in the hall of fame. Unfortunately I don't think either will ever be elected. However if I had the power to put just one into the hall I'd pick Fred McGriff. Tied with Lou Gerhig for career home runs. A better lifetime batting average than Dawson but most important McGriff has a ring! That's the difference!
2007-11-02 08:21:07 · answer #4 · answered by The Mick 7 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Dawson, because he was a dominant player at his position and his league for most of the 80s. McGriff was a solid producer but never considered the top 1B in the league.
Dawson was a MVP, a multiple all-star and was five-tool player. ANd he should be in the HOF
2007-11-02 17:04:29 · answer #5 · answered by Matt G 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
McGriff would be my choice. He was very instrumental in the
Atlanta Braves' winning the World Series in 1995. His numbers are staggering considering some others in the Hall and he was a very good first baseman. Honestly I think both of these guys are worthy, but if I have to pick one it would be Fred McGriff.
2007-11-02 07:52:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Crime Dog is one of my favourite players, but I think The Hawk (Dawson) deserves the Hall of Fame a bit more, because he did it for longer, and even though McGriff is a very good first baseman, Dawson contributed more in the outfield. It is a shame that Dawson's knees had to endure so many seasons on the horrible playing surface at Olympic Stadium in Montreal!
2007-11-02 04:46:16 · answer #7 · answered by maddog27271 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Neither. This is the Hall of Fame. Not the Hall of the very good players.
People on here compare stats of players today with stats of players already in the HOF. Some do not measure up anymore.
With the smaller ballparks, livelier ball, reduced height of the pitchers mound, the strike zone the size of the postage stamp, IMO 500 HR's is not a shoo-in anymore to get to the hall. Almost every rule change has benefited the hitters so MLB can keep fans in the seat with offensive explosions. Can you imagine what Williams, DiMaggio, Mantle, Musial, etc. would have done with todays rules and parks.
If you go by straight up stats as benchmarks that means there might never be another starting pitcher to get into the HOF except for Glavine because he may be the last 300 game winner.
2007-11-02 08:25:12 · answer #8 · answered by The Lorax 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Neither will ever make it, but I would take Mcgriff out of the 2. 492 hr's, all star mvp, always a top producer, and a great clubhouse guy.
2007-11-02 05:41:10 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
McGriff, easily.
Dawson had his strengths, but getting on base wasn't one of them, and that's a rather fundamental skill to the game, one in which lacking is a significant drawback.
Dawson, should he get elected, would have the lowest career OBP among all primary outfielders, and he'd take that distinction by about 20 points, or "a country mile" in the popular lingo.
Not saying that should keep him out, but it points, with large neon arrows, to a serious shortcoming in his gameplay style, one that shouldn't be overlooked.
I categorize Dawson with Rice and Murphy and maybe a few others -- would look good on a bronze plaque, but the Hall is not suffering for their absence.
McGriff, man, he could hit. That "falling short of 500 homers" thing doesn't bother me.
2007-11-02 09:12:21 · answer #10 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋