Anyone think Andre Dawson will get into the HOF?

[blazers091]

Anyone here think he'll get in eventually. He did get 65.9% of the votes in 2008, so he may be getting closer each year. He's the third member of the 400 HR 300 SB club with Barry Bonds and HOF'er Willie Mays.

 

[Frow]

If he does he'll do it because there is no one else to vote in and the writers have to sink their votes into someone. With Rice out of the way Dawson is next.

 

[pujolsthomefan33]

He is so borderline.....with Jim Rice getting in and all these steroid guys hurting their chances there is a good chance he will get in.....I kind of compare Dawson with Fred McGriff. So close on so many things, yet no milestones obtained.


Career numbers stack up to many HOFers though...

21 Seasons
.279 avg
2774 hits
1591 RBIs
1373 Runs
438 HRs
314 SBs
1977 NL ROY
1987 NL MVP
8-Time AS
8-Time GG Winner
4-Time SS Award


Here is what is probably really hurting him the most
NO WORLD SERIES TITLES--in fact only played in 3 playoff series
PLAYED FOR MONTREAL EXPOS AND CHICAGO CUBS



TK

 

[Jack Straw]

I will say yes. I personally think he should be in there.

 

[jbone17]

I say he has a shot, but maybe on his last year.

 

[ChasHawk]

He is so borderline.....with Jim Rice getting in and all these steroid guys hurting their chances there is a good chance he will get in.....I kind of compare Dawson with Fred McGriff. So close on so many things, yet no milestones obtained.


Career numbers surpass many HOFers though...
TK

Fixed it for ya - He gets in next year......deservedly so.

edit: wanted to also point out that it is the Hall of Fame,
not the Hall of World Series titles. Plenty of HOFers with no bling.

 

[abncollectsautos]

He deserves it more than rice in my opinion. Can't always help which team you played for. Free agency was not as big then.

 

[js0000001]

Ask Sandberg

 

[Frow]

He is so borderline.....with Jim Rice getting in and all these steroid guys hurting their chances there is a good chance he will get in.....I kind of compare Dawson with Fred McGriff. So close on so many things, yet no milestones obtained.


Career numbers surpass many HOFers though...
TK

Fixed it for ya - He gets in next year......deservedly so.

edit: wanted to also point out that it is the Hall of Fame,
not the Hall of World Series titles. Plenty of HOFers with no bling.

Next year, not so much. There are some fairly good canidates and some fringe guys in Alomar, Edgar, Larkin, and McGriff. No way for Dawson to back into that year.

2011 is relatively weak though Palmero will join McGwire in eating votes but not getting in. Bagwell might eat a few, and lord knows the NY writers will try to make the case for Tino. Unless there is a good name hanging over from 2010 Dawson has an ok chance.

 

[cbrandtw]

I would vote for him.

 

[jeff550]

he will get in someday

 

[goldenegg1]

He gets in this year.

 

[BunchOBull]

He did a lot with what little he had around him.

 

[ChasHawk]

He is so borderline.....with Jim Rice getting in and all these steroid guys hurting their chances there is a good chance he will get in.....I kind of compare Dawson with Fred McGriff. So close on so many things, yet no milestones obtained.


Career numbers surpass many HOFers though...
TK

Fixed it for ya - He gets in next year......deservedly so.

edit: wanted to also point out that it is the Hall of Fame,
not the Hall of World Series titles. Plenty of HOFers with no bling.

Next year, not so much. There are some fairly good canidates and some fringe guys in Alomar, Edgar, Larkin, and McGriff. No way for Dawson to back into that year.

2011 is relatively weak though Palmero will join McGwire in eating votes but not getting in. Bagwell might eat a few, and lord knows the NY writers will try to make the case for Tino. Unless there is a good name hanging over from 2010 Dawson has an ok chance.

Not a single one of those guys is a 1st ballot HOFer, so why would they affect Dawson's chances?

 

[sportscardtheory]

Although he is marginal, they have let in many marginal players. So I say yes.

 

[goldenegg1]

Although he is marginal, they have let in many marginal players. So I say yes.

Andre Dawson is far from marginal.
If he had played most of his career in Boston or New York instead of Montreal he would have been in long ago.
Don't forget that he is also one of only two people to win the MVP award on a last place team. The other one is A-Roid.

 

[sportscardtheory]

Although he is marginal, they have let in many marginal players. So I say yes.

Andre Dawson is far from marginal.
If he had played most of his career in Boston or New York instead of Montreal he would have been in long ago.
Don't forget that he is also one of only two people to win the MVP award on a last place team. The other one is A-Roid.

I think he is marginal compared to the best ever, which the Hall is SUPPOSED to contain. He was an outstanding player, just not one of the best ever. It's like having a list of the best 100 players ever, sure there are guys beyond the initial 100 you could put on the list, but then it would not be a 100 player list. Harold Baines is ranked higher than him in Hall worthiness on sportsreference.com., and he is no Hall of Famer.

 

[leatherman]

I realize I am alone in this, but I think Dave Parker should get more consideration than Dawson. Parker has been on the ballot 13 times now, and gets about 15% of the votes every year.

I don't think Parker should get in either, but I think he is ahead of Dawson (and Blyleven, see my lone blog entry on that) if you remove the "character" portion of the argument, and simply focus on stats and contributions to the team. Parker's biggest hurdle in HOF election is his involvement in the Pittsburgh Drug Trials, which resulted in a one year suspension from baseball (although he was reinstated by donating 10% of his salary to drug related community service, and 100 hours of community service).

Compare Parker to Dawson and you will see surprisingly similar numbers. To me, without question, Parker would be getting similar HOF vote totals (to Dawson) were it not for this scandal.

If I were voting, I would leave both Dawson and Parker off my ballot.

David

 

[ChasHawk]

Again: It's not the Hall of the the 100 best guys to ever play baseball.

And, Baines spent most of his career as a DH or a terrible OFer.

Although he is marginal, they have let in many marginal players. So I say yes.

Andre Dawson is far from marginal.
If he had played most of his career in Boston or New York instead of Montreal he would have been in long ago.
Don't forget that he is also one of only two people to win the MVP award on a last place team. The other one is A-Roid.

I think he is marginal compared to the best ever, which the Hall is SUPPOSED to contain. He was an outstanding player, just not one of the best ever. It's like having a list of the best 100 players ever, sure there are guys beyond the initial 100 you could put on the list, but then it would not be a 100 player list. Harold Baines is ranked higher than him in Hall worthiness on sportsreference.com., and he is no Hall of Famer.

 

[sportscardtheory]

Again: It's not the Hall of the the 100 best guys to ever play baseball.

And, Baines spent most of his career as a DH or a terrible OFer.

Although he is marginal, they have let in many marginal players. So I say yes.

Andre Dawson is far from marginal.
If he had played most of his career in Boston or New York instead of Montreal he would have been in long ago.
Don't forget that he is also one of only two people to win the MVP award on a last place team. The other one is A-Roid.

I think he is marginal compared to the best ever, which the Hall is SUPPOSED to contain. He was an outstanding player, just not one of the best ever. It's like having a list of the best 100 players ever, sure there are guys beyond the initial 100 you could put on the list, but then it would not be a 100 player list. Harold Baines is ranked higher than him in Hall worthiness on sportsreference.com., and he is no Hall of Famer.

I know it's not, I was using it as an example. If there is a thousand players in the Hall, what does it mean to be the 999th best out of them (just an example, don't take it literally). In a list of my top 20,000 favorite songs, do you really think song number 15,782 is going to be that great of a song (again, just an example).