I stumbled upon a Tim Kurkjian (who I normally quite enjoy) chat on espn.com today and assumed that I would find some solid arguments. Instead, I found this:
There is no denying that Dawson's career OBP (.323) is exceptionally low for a Hall of Famer, or a strong Hall of Fame candidate. But you're right; the emphasis recently, meaning the last 10-15 years, on OBP, doesn't help Dawson's case. Believe me, I love guys who walk a lot. I love guys who get on base. But occasionally, there is a player or two who will take a pitch that would normally be a ball and hit it for a two-run double. We cannot look past guys like that just because they don't walk all the time.
[Doesn't the exceptionally low *for a Hall of Famer* qualifier effectively negate this supposed "recent" emphasis on OBP? And if Dawson so frequently took a pitch that "would normally be a ball and hit it it for a two-run double," wouldn't his, ummm, OBP have been higher? Unless by "hit it for a two-run double" Tim actually meant "swung and missed."]
[Dawson] played as hard as anyone who ever played, he's one of the great character guys of the last 30 years. That means something to me.
[Well, I guess Albert Belle can go ahead and cross one name off of his pending campaign phone bank list.]
A really good stat guy told me yesterday that most Hall of Famers are better hitters at home than on the road, because they get comfortable in their home park.
[Seriously? A "really good stat guy" analyzed hitting with the use of the amorphous concept of "being comfortable" (as opposed to using, say, stats)?]
I think our best baseball fans understand that there is a difference between Babe Ruth and Jim Rice, Willie Mays and Andre Dawson. I don't think we need a tier system; we just need to understand that the greatest players of all time are in one category, and great players are in another.
[Category 1: Hall of Fame. Category 2: Owners of sports bars bearing their name.]
But they can all live in the same house in Cooperstown.
[Or we could do that.]
I voted for nine players. I voted for Dawson, Rice, Raines, Jack Morris, Lee Smith, Bert Blyleven, Mark McGwire, Alan Trammell, and of course, Rickey Henderson. Again, I am way in the minority voting for nine guys. A good friend and fellow voter once told me that I'd better have a really good reason not to vote for a player, just in case he missed by one vote. If I don't have a really good reason, I vote for him. I have some friends who vote for ten guys every year, no matter what. I have other guys who won't vote for more than one or two, no matter what. That's the beauty of the Hall of Fame voting. Everyone has a different philosophy.
[Love it. Basis for voting: A career's worth of player performance < Tim not wanting to be *that* guy.
And given the topic, it seems like there are way too many "no matter what" and "Jack Morris" references in there, right?]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Tim's a big-Hall guy. I don't have that much objection to all-inclusive ballots like this, because they're internally consistent. I'm more disturbed by Rice-no-Raines or Dawson-no-Raines (seriously, they played next to each other, and you still picked the wrong one!) ballots.
@ Keith - While you do have to hand it to Tim, whose writing I usually like very much, for being internally consistent, his position still makes no sense...especially the Rice-no-Raines/Dawson-no-Raines.
wow, a Keith Law post. that guy is hilarious.
not that i agree with Rice's inclusion, but isnt there always going to be a contentious and subjective cut off line for HoF inductees?
Post a Comment