Good bye Andre Dawson

[nyy26wc]

For tonight, my goal was to finish Baseball Immortal Andre Dawson's area.

One could say I succeeded, since Dawson's area was just finished. But, now it is the area of expelled former member Dawson.

While working on his area, I realized how weak his credentials really are and have revoked his membership.

Eventually, after I create areas for all of the Immortals, I'll start putting together areas for non immortals. I have lots of individual pages stored on my computer, which I've created while in the process of creating other areas. I've filed them away until it's time to start using them.

But, since there's been some interest in Dawson expressed on these boards recently, I've uploaded his area.

It's at http://www.baseballimmortals.net/non...e_dawson.shtml

[Xanadu Dragon]

I dunno? You can make a case that he was in the Top 20 of players in his time, and the 400/300 club is a small one.

1977-1992 OWP Leaders 7500+ PA
1 Rickey Henderson .734
2 Mike Schmidt .704
3 Tim Raines .693
4 George Brett .689
5 Eddie Murray .667
6 Jack Clark .664
7 Keith Hernandez .658
8 Paul Molitor .650
9 Dave Winfield .649
10 Dwight Evans .641
11 Brian Downing .632
12 Robin Yount .615
13 Jim Rice .602
14 Cal Ripken .597
15 Lou Whitaker .593
16 Andre Dawson .590

[nyy26wc]

That chart doesn't support Dawson. Jack Clark, Keith Hernandez and Brian Downing are all at least .032 ahead of Dawson and none of them are in.

[hmrsf]

Just hit me and (I know off topic), a lot of my draft is on that list. Either I grew up in a great era of baseball OR do we always keep our childhood heroes close to our hearts.

Players like Murray, Yount, Raines and Evan were larger than life. They arn't just pictures in a book or numbers on a page.

Sorry, odd random thought.

P.S. back on topic, Lee: keep these pages coming,.....I gobble them up in a greedy gulp. You write the best plaques! Special thanks for keeping these greats alive!

[Xanadu Dragon]

Originally posted by hmrsf
Either I grew up in a great era of baseball OR do we always keep our childhood heroes close to our hearts.

Probably both.

Lee - Jack Clark, Keith Hernandez and Brian Downing aren't 400/300 guys 'tho.

[chrisfostermusi]

The one thing I liked about Dawson was his straight forward attitude. When he was criticized for not getting more walks he countered "I get paid to hit not to take walks."

He probably sees a strikeout as a measure of how much he tried. His 87 season was great.

He is immortal! He was a Cub wasn't he?

[gyb13]

Originally posted by Xanadu Dragon
Lee - Jack Clark, Keith Hernandez and Brian Downing aren't 400/300 guys 'tho.

What makes a better player tho - a higher OWP or surpassing arbitrary milestones?

[Xanadu Dragon]

Originally posted by gyb13
What makes a better player tho - a higher OWP or surpassing arbitrary milestones?

Good question.

First, I should back-track, I'm not sure I would call Dawson an "immortal" in the sense that Rickey, Schmidt and Brett are.............actually, no way would I call him that, compared to those guys. Just not sure that I would call his credentials "weak."

Back to the Q - to win a game, I like the high OWP player. To be remembered, whether it's right or wrong, nothing beats the milestones.

I'd take Dawson over Clark in a heartbeat. Dawson was a great, and I mean great, center fielder, while Clark was an OK right fielder and an indifferent first baseman. Dawson had great speed when he was young and was a smart baserunner even after he lost his speed. Clark had pretty decent speed and, when he lost that, he became an anvil on the bases.

Both guys suffered a lot of injuries, but Dawson always seemed to play through them while Clark would miss 40 games a year.

[gyb13]

Originally posted by Xanadu Dragon
Back to the Q - to win a game, I like the high OWP player. To be remembered, whether it's right or wrong, nothing beats the milestones.

But isn't that why we use advanced metrics? So that we can look beyond the milestones and the inflated batting averages and be able to make a better quantitative assessment of a player's value?

Look, Downing and Clark aren't anywhere near Dawson.

Dawson had just as much power as Clark, and a lot more than Downing. He had a much, much longer career than either one.

The only advantage those guys have is OBP, which is pretty significant... .379, .370 to Dawson's .323. Still, that's only 35 out a year. But Dawson averaged a hell of a lot more total bases per year than those guys, and 35 outs a year is a conservative estimate of the defensive difference between them.

[gyb13]

I'm not discussing Downing, Clark, or Dawson. I was asking Steve a question on his methods of assessing a player.

[Xanadu Dragon]

Originally posted by gyb13
I'm not discussing Downing, Clark, or Dawson. I was asking Steve a question on his methods of assessing a player.

But isn't that why we use advanced metrics? So that we can look beyond the milestones and the inflated batting averages and be able to make a better quantitative assessment of a player's value?

Of course that's why we use them. But, that's not the question in the thread for me. The question is - are Dawson's "credentials" such that they should be labeled "weak"? And, to that, I have to disagree. Immortal, no? But, average or below average? No. He did have a .590 OWP.

[LeGrandOrange]

Here's my only question: How's Dave Kingman more worthy then Dawson?
I would say more, but it would end up being a Lee Elia-esque tirade, and not suitable for all viewers.

[gyb13]

Originally posted by Xanadu Dragon
The question is - are Dawson's "credentials" such that they should be labeled "weak"? And, to that, I have to disagree. Immortal, no? But, average or below average? No. He did have a .590 OWP.

I think didn't mean weak; just weak for immortality.