ANDRE DAWSON

Position: OF | Years: 1976-96 | Teams: Montreal, Chicago Cubs, Boston, Florida
Key stats: 438 HR; 314 stolen bases; 2,774 hits
Highlights: '77 NL ROY; '87 NL MVP; 8 Gold Gloves
Years on ballot: 6 | Highest vote total: 317 (60.96%), 2006

THE CASE FOR
What do you want in a ballplayer? You'd want a consistently tough out, someone who could hit for power, run, cover ground in the field and make strong, accurate throws. You'd want high character, leadership ability and a willingness to play hurt. You'd want Andre Dawson. He won eight Gold Gloves, the first four in center field before sliding to right when Tim Raines arrived in Montreal. He was the first player with double-figure totals in both home runs and stolen bases 12 years in a row. Dawson had 16 straight years with 45 extra-base hits, a run worthy of guys like Henry Aaron, Stan Musial, Willie Mays, Mel Ott and Honus Wagner. His 2,774 career hits are the most of any eligible player not in the Hall. Dave Winfield, a first-ballot Hall of Famer, had 3,000 hits and a World Series ring but never finished in the top two for MVP honors. Dawson won an MVP and finished second twice. It's time to remember just how great of a player he was.
-- Phil Rogers


THE CASE AGAINST
OK, I admit -- I don't have a Hall of Fame vote. I'm an editor, not a writer, so my opinion has no direct bearing on Andre Dawson's entrance into Cooperstown. But if I had a vote, I wouldn't vote for Dawson. Don't get me wrong: Dawson was a great player. He could hit for power, steal bases, gun down baserunners, and more. He produced stellar numbers from year to year. He won an MVP. He won Gold Gloves. There were no major kinks in his game. But not every great player is a Hall of Famer. I believe the Hall of Fame should be reserved for the truly elite, the best of the best. With Dawson, I only have an issue making the leap from "great" to "elite." Sure, there are several Hall of Famers with inferior ability and numbers. While that seems unfair to Dawson, that doesn't mean one should automatically admit him for comparison's sake. On his own "Hawk" falls short of garnering my vote -- for what it's worth.
-- David Kull

Yes. Homer vote I guess. My favorite times going to Cubs games were when Dawson and Ryno were playing. I was a kid then, fun times.

i VOTED YES. but its probably subliminal homer on my part. Nevertheless he has a track record of some pretty cold achievements(remember the two home runs in one inning) and would hold his own against robert parrish in a stare down
http://www.baseballcardproject.com/Donruss/MVP/1989/8.jpg

My shpiel to come. I'm a tentative next but as per usual, I'm going to insist on being long-winded on the whole thing so y'all are going to have to bear with me. Just haven't had the energy to type it all up yet.

The Hall is a joke at this point anyhow, but I put him in regardless. It's been so long since his glory days that few people actually remember just how good he was during that stretch.

The Hall is a joke at this point anyhow, but I put him in regardless. It's been so long since his glory days that few people actually remember just how good he was during that stretch.

I agree that the Hall of Fame is a Joke. Only the best of the best should make it in yet they still let in players who were great but not the best. This has cheapened the whole thing and disrespects the truly great players.

Yeah, there are 278 members of the hall right now, 196 of them are former major league players. In going through the list, I came up with about 48 names that truly belong there from that group. If you were absolutely DOMINANT in the league for several years, you don't belong. I'm talking about players that the opposition feared every time they faced them. Bob Gibson and Nolan Ryan, Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth and Willie Mays. In their primes, nobody wanted to go up against these guys. You can't say that about Robin Yount and Bruce Sutter.

You can certainly say that about Sutter, but only for 1 inning at a time.

You can't say that about Kaline, but he surely belongs. He and Yount both got in because of career accomplishment and super gloves.

They drew a line, it is where it is, and some borderline guys will make it, some won't. They could have had a hall of incredible fame, but then who's to say Ted Williams gets in but Stan the Man doesn't?

Yeah, it's imperfect. In some ways the waiting period should be longer so there's more time to put accomplishments in perspective, in other ways it should be shorter in the case of a truly dominant player.

Basically, if you didn't get in first ballot, you're an also-ran. They should develop a historic formula for weighing an individual's accomplishments with the success of their team. Who did more to help their team win in the games they played?

There can never be anything that is a perfect standard, but needless to say there are guys in the Hall that if they were currently in their prime and available as free agents at a reasonable cost, I would not want them on my team because I don't think they're that good. I bet there are 5 or 6 Tigers that are better right now than some Hall of Famers in their primes, but there is no way 5 or 6 guys from this club will make the Hall. Well, maybe they will. Sheffield has a shot, Pudge is a lock. Kenny Rogers? Probably not. Ordonez? Probably not. Bonderman, Verlander, Zumaya? Way too early to tell, but I wouldn't bet on it at this point.

Bruce Sutter, my poop shooter.
Lee Smith has FAR more saves than Sutter, and there is another important statistic that Smith dominates in. He has, I believe, more 4+ out saves than Suter had SAVES!
Yet, Smith is not in the HOF. Go figure.