Do you think that Andre Dawson should be in the Hall of Fame?

Question

Its a tough call. He had a great career; is it Hall of Fame great?

Answer 1

I think he's on the razor's edge- he put up solid numbers across the board that make a good argument, but the writers always look for that D-word: Dominance. He wasn't really what I'd call a dominant or "game-changing" player, but he did everything well, and was a nice guy, to boot. I do agree that later players probably hurt his chances, as Ed B eloquently said above.

I'd probably put him in on a veteran's committee vote.

Answer 2

You're right. He had a great career, undoubtedly lessened by his leg and knee problems (they say that were caused by playing on that turf in Olympic Stadium). However, aside from the one MVP season, he never really stood out from the pack of other very good ballplayers. His longevity allowed for a good accumulation of home runs and stolen bases, but does that merit Hall of Fame entry? I'm on the fence with Mr. Dawson, but I would probably deny him entrance until borderline cases like him have gained more acceptance (like for Bert Blyleven for instance).

Answer 3

I wouldn't vote for him, mainly because his career OBP isn't very good -- and what that says about how he played is more important than what the actual stat is -- and that really is an inextricable part of his career and his gameplay style.

Granted that making lots and lots of outs hasn't kept anyone out of the Hall yet, but Dawson made outs at a scary-ferocious rate.

But his ballot returns are more than promising, and I expect that the writers will elect him, possibly next month, as this year's ballot is not very inspiring.

My standing opinion: he'd look good on a plaque, but the Hall is not suffering for his absence.

Answer 4

I think the reason he isn't is because Fielder and Canseco started putting up so many homers. Hes one of the last of the 1970-80s players that when you hit 20 hr and stole 20 bases it was considered a great season he also had such a nice swing.

Answer 5

I wouldn't rule him out getting in this year. His stats are decent enough --- I would vote "YES". Also, I'll always remember Dawson as being the only ballplayer to ever win the league MVP Award while playing on a last place team.

And in answer to Chipmaker and his Google implant that he relies on so heavily, it's true that the HOF may not be suffering without Dawson's presence, but that's not true when it comes to you being here in Yahoo Answers.

Answer 6

It's tough call...he had a terrific career, but he's more Jim Rice than Ted Williams.

There are guys who are in...Billy Williams, Winfield, Kaline that are in...but other guys...like Parker, Baines, Evans, Rice...are not.

Dawson led the league in homers only once, RBI only once, never in BA, once in hits, never in runs, never in slugging..

Most of the major offensive categories...

However, he was in the top 3 in much of them 2-3-4 times during his career.

Borderline...and in my opinion, we have too many in at the borderline now..

Before Dawson...Santo, Blyleven, maybe Gossage...gotta get in...then we'll see about Andre.

Answer 7

I agree with what others have said The Hawk belongs in the Hall He didnt play on any WS teams but he was consistent and talented

Answer 8

He is one of those borderline players that can go either way and right now he is out. I believe if I had a choice I would include both Jim Rice and Dawson.

Answer 9

one of the best OF arms in mlb history. MVP. great power hitter, absolutely feared in the mid to late 80s. good speed too. he should absolutely be in. unfortunately he falls into the jim rice category. for some strange reason the voters dont look at him as a hof player when he clearly is. i dont get it. good question.

Answer 10

yes, just because he fell just short of that 500 HR number does not mean he was not one of the best and most competitive outfielders for his time. plus why should a player be penalized for playing for teams that were not very good.