PDA

View Full Version : Andre Dawson elected to Baseball Hall of Fame



megimoo
01-06-2010, 05:46 PM
Andre Dawson was one happy former Cub on Wednesday.

A jump of 59 votes from 2009 got Dawson into baseball's Hall of Fame in his ninth year on the ballot. Dawson, the only player elected this year, was thrilled.

"The wait isn't a big factor in the scheme of things,'' Dawson said. "You get frustrated when people say, 'When are you going to get in,' and you don't have an answer for that. As I sit here now, I think it was well worth the wait. ... One thing my mama always said is it's going to happen one day, just be ready when it happens.''

Dawson, who finished 44 votes short a year ago when Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice were elected, was named on 420 of 539 ballots in this year's Baseball Writers Association of America election -- good for 77.9 percent of the vote.

Dawson played with the Cubs in 1987-92, winning NL MVP honors in '87. He was an eight-time All-Star and won eight Gold Gloves. But because he never played on a World Series champion, little in baseball made Dawson happier than his election to the Hall.

Dawson was almost joined by two others. Pitcher Bert Blyleven received 400 votes, only five less than needed, and first-ballot candidate and former White Sox second baseman Roberto Alomar was named on 397 ballots, eight short. That suggests that both will be elected in the future, most likely in 2011.

"This is a beautiful day for Andre Dawson,'' Blyleven told the MLB Network. "I'm surprised Roberto Alomar didn't make it. Hopefully my time is coming."

Alomar was followed by pitcher Jack Morris with 282 (52.3 percent). Cincinnati shortstop Barry Larkin was on 278 ballots (51.6 percent), followed by reliever Lee Smith at 255 (47.3 percent) and Edgar Martinez at 195 (36.2 percent).

"I feel disappointed, but next year hopefully I make it in," Alomar said from his home in New York. "At least I was close."

Mark McGwire received 128 votes (23.7 percent), 10 more than last year and matching the total from his first two times on the ballot.

Dawson came to Chicago in grand fashion, giving the Cubs the chance to sign him for a blank check after he languished on a free-agent market that was later judged by an arbitrator to have been manipulated by owners. He was among the players receiving damages from those collusion findings.

Dawson becomes the 46th Cub elected to the Hall of Fame. This will mark the fifth induction in the last seven years with a Cubs connection, following the election of Dennis Eckersley in 2004, Ryne Sandberg in '05, Bruce Sutter in '06 and Goose Gossage in '08.

Dawson will be inducted July 25 at Cooperstown along with manager Whitey Herzog and umpire Doug Harvey, elected last month by the Veterans Committee.


http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/01/andre-dawson-elected-to-hall-of-fame.html

JB
01-06-2010, 06:46 PM
Good for him. I always liked The Hawk.

expat-pattaya
01-07-2010, 10:43 AM
Good for Hawk.

Can't believe that Alomar wasn't a first time HOFer. He is the best 2b since Morgan IMO.

And of course they continue to slight McGwire. How long do they intend to punish him for "alleged" steroids or his testimony in front of congress?

And if they do punish him for use of steroids (allegedly) then who else will be found guilty just because they are big and hit home runs? Bonds, A-Rod? Cal Ripken? Clemens? Thomas? Palmiero? Where to draw the line?

Oh well, all the best to Hawk. He was one of the best.

ralph wiggum
01-07-2010, 11:30 AM
Not a good choice, and neither was Jim Rice. They won't make the HOF worse, as there have been far poorer selections, usually by the Veterans Committee. Guys like Dawson & Rice who had a lot of RBI's tend to get overrated.

Blyleven & Alomar are guaranteed to go in next year after missing by so little, and deservedly so.

lacarnut
01-07-2010, 06:12 PM
Pete Rose should be in the Hall because of his playing accomplishments. Put him in the hall of shame as a coach.

Constitutionally Speaking
01-07-2010, 07:10 PM
I personally think Alan Trammel and Jack Morris deserve in before Dawson, not to take anything away from him, but these two had better stats and were more deserving.

ralph wiggum
01-08-2010, 12:52 AM
I personally think Alan Trammel and Jack Morris deserve in before Dawson, not to take anything away from him, but these two had better stats and were more deserving.

Trammell might make it...in 30 years or so in some incarnation of the whatever the Veterans Committee is at the time. He suffers from the comparisons to A-Rod (as SS), Ripken, Nomar (in his prime), Tejada, and the more power hitting shortstops of the more recent era.

He would get my vote.

Morris is a tough one. The main reason he doesn't get in is his high E.RA, especially relative to his era. If you had that E.RA in the current era along with his other accomplishments, I think you could justify him for the HOF. It's a tough call. Really respect the guy and have fond memories, but I just don't think I could vote for him.

Not that I have a vote or anything. :D

expat-pattaya
01-08-2010, 12:25 PM
I think Hawk is a much more deserving candidate than either Trammell or Morris.

To me, a candidate for the HOF shoud have two things on the resume, or absolute dominance in one of them.

1) He must be THE PLAYER that another team was scared of. For at least a 4-5 year period. He had to be the guy you feared to face with runners on base in a game deciding situation or the pitcher you feared in game 7.

2) He must have produced outstanding numbers for 10-20 years.

Dawson has a record of 438 hrs, 314 sbs, .279 avg, .806 OPS. Add in 8 gold gloves, 8 all-stars, Rookie of the Year and an NL MVP. I do not feel he ever made it to the first of two requirements I have. I do not feel he was ever one of the most feared guys i baseball. I think he was marginal as an entry but don't complain he is in.

Trammell, I don't know. He played one year less than Hawk. Had about 1000 fewer abs. Hit 185 hrs, 236 sbs, .285 avg and .767 OPS. Had 4 gold gloves and 6 all-stars. Really only had one year where he might have scared the opposition to death - sort of. Not knocking him, but when compared to other shortstops of his era, he wasn't that special. Just solid, dependable. I would categorize him as a star - not a superstar. Just my Opinion.

I have an even harder time with Morris. His ERA numbers do not impress (3.90 lifetime) and he really only had one dominant year in 1986. I don't see it.

To put Hawk and Trammell in perspective, look at Alomars numbers and remember he was a wizard around 2b.

In fewer years than both he put up 210 hrs, 474 sbs, .300 avg, and .814 OPS. That last number is truly a better indicator of hitting prowess than the normal numbers. He also had dominant numbers in 1993, 96, 97, 99 and 2001. 10 gold gloves and TWELVE all-stars. He should have been a lock. I'm guessing there was some "no one gets a vote first ballot" attitude and some "he spit on an umpire" retribution in the voters minds. Only explanation why he isn't in NOW.

coach
01-08-2010, 04:02 PM
When Morris was on, he was amazing. That duel with Smoltz was about as amazing a pitchig performance by both of them as I ever expect to see. But is that enough for HOF ? Maybe not.