A case against the Hawk
The HOF voters may be on Andre Dawson's side, but the numbers aren't
By Matt Meyers
ESPN Insider
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
That's an old saying, one that everyone knows. However, based on Andre Dawson's election to the Baseball Hall of Fame, you'd think that Hall voters were blissfully unaware of this well-worn phrase.
You see, there's an internal contradiction that permeates voting for the Hall of Fame. Players need MVP and Cy Young awards to build their Hall of Fame cases, and writers look to the winners of these awards as a guideline when voting for the Hall. The flaw is that the members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America vote for both the end-of-season awards and the Hall of Fame, and occasionally they elect players into Cooperstown based on awards they never deserved to win, compounding their original error. Case in point: Andre Dawson, the National League MVP in 1987. It's probably the least deserved MVP award of the past 30 years -- I'll explain -- yet it often is cited as the main point for those making the Hawk-for-the-Hall case. But without that MVP, it's unlikely that Dawson would be giving a speech on Sunday.
<OFFER>
Dawson's 1987 season has been dissected numerous times, so here's the short version: He went into the previous offseason as a free agent, but because of collusion by the owners, he couldn't get a reasonable offer on the market despite being one of the premier players in the game. Frustrated, Dawson gave the Cubs a blank check and signed for $500,000 plus incentives, which was way below his market value, even for 1987. The right fielder proceeded to hit .287 with 49 homers and 137 RBIs, and won the MVP even though the Cubs finished in last place in the NL East. I won't begrudge the writers for giving the MVP to Dawson based on homers and RBIs, because statistical analysis was far more rudimentary in 1987, and that was par for the course. However, it's amazing that in the nine years since he first became eligible for the Hall in 2001, writers haven't incorporated nuanced baseball analytics into the discussion. So, just how bad a choice was Dawson? Let's explore.
As we know, the MVP almost always goes to a player on a playoff (or at least contending) team -- unless someone blows everyone else out of the water with his stats. Dawson's league-leading home run and RBI totals were impressive, but a quick look at a few other MVP stats indicate that his season was pedestrian in comparison. Among the 18 hitters who received MVP votes that year, Dawson ranked 12th in batting average (.287), 11th in runs scored (90), sixth in slugging percentage (.568) and 18th in on-base percentage (.328). Yes, that's 18th of 18!
And this cuts to the core of the anti-Hawk Hall argument: The guy simply made a lot of outs. In fact, Dawson finished sixth in the league in outs made in 1987. His .323 career OBP is the lowest among Hall of Fame outfielders, and it's 20 percentage points lower than that of the next guy (Lou Brock).
But a .328 OBP in 1987 isn't the only reason Dawson didn't deserve his MVP. It turns out he wasn't even the best outfielder on a bad team. How about Braves center fielder Dale Murphy, whose OPS was 100 percentage points better than Dawson's (.997 to .896)? (He finished 11th in the MVP vote.) How about two outfielders within Dawson's division who played for 90-win teams? Mets right fielder Darryl Strawberry hit 39 homers, stole 36 bases and had more than 100 runs and RBIs while posting a .398 OBP. (He finished sixth.) Expos left fielder Tim Raines hit .330 with a .429 OBP, .529 slugging, 123 runs scored and 50 steals. (He finished seventh.) Other outfielders who received MVP votes and had a higher OPS than the Hawk that season were Eric Davis (.991), Tony Gwynn (.958) and Pedro Guerrero (.958). Now I'm not claiming that OPS is the be-all, end-all stat, but if you have the seventh-best OPS among outfielders in your league in a given season and you don't play center field or steal bases at an efficient clip, you probably shouldn't be the MVP. Voters in 1987 might not have been able to see that, but voters in 2009 should have.
I could go on and explain why Ozzie Smith and Mike Schmidt were also better MVP choices, but the bottom line is that any Hall of Fame voter from this past year who voted for the 1987 MVP, and there are many of them, should have been able to look back at the 1987 season and realize that Dawson was far from the best player in the NL that year. Not only did he not deserve the award, he also might not have been one of the 10 best choices.
Allow me to leave you with a Jerry Springer-style final thought. Wins above replacement is an all-encompassing metric that incorporates hitting, baserunning and defense. The Hawk's 2.7 WAR ranked 18th among the 18 position players who received votes for the NL MVP that year. And it's the third-lowest WAR for any MVP in history, higher than only that of Willie Stargell (2.3 in 1979) and Roger Peckinpaugh (2.4 in 1925).
Despite all this data regarding Dawson's 1987 season, you still might think he is a Hall of Famer. We can agree to disagree on that. However, when making the case for the Hawk, please don't bring his MVP award into the discussion. It just doesn't hold up.
Matt Meyers is an associate editor for ESPN Insider.
The HOF voters may be on Andre Dawson's side, but the numbers aren't
By Matt Meyers
ESPN Insider
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
That's an old saying, one that everyone knows. However, based on Andre Dawson's election to the Baseball Hall of Fame, you'd think that Hall voters were blissfully unaware of this well-worn phrase.
You see, there's an internal contradiction that permeates voting for the Hall of Fame. Players need MVP and Cy Young awards to build their Hall of Fame cases, and writers look to the winners of these awards as a guideline when voting for the Hall. The flaw is that the members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America vote for both the end-of-season awards and the Hall of Fame, and occasionally they elect players into Cooperstown based on awards they never deserved to win, compounding their original error. Case in point: Andre Dawson, the National League MVP in 1987. It's probably the least deserved MVP award of the past 30 years -- I'll explain -- yet it often is cited as the main point for those making the Hawk-for-the-Hall case. But without that MVP, it's unlikely that Dawson would be giving a speech on Sunday.
<OFFER>
Dawson's 1987 season has been dissected numerous times, so here's the short version: He went into the previous offseason as a free agent, but because of collusion by the owners, he couldn't get a reasonable offer on the market despite being one of the premier players in the game. Frustrated, Dawson gave the Cubs a blank check and signed for $500,000 plus incentives, which was way below his market value, even for 1987. The right fielder proceeded to hit .287 with 49 homers and 137 RBIs, and won the MVP even though the Cubs finished in last place in the NL East. I won't begrudge the writers for giving the MVP to Dawson based on homers and RBIs, because statistical analysis was far more rudimentary in 1987, and that was par for the course. However, it's amazing that in the nine years since he first became eligible for the Hall in 2001, writers haven't incorporated nuanced baseball analytics into the discussion. So, just how bad a choice was Dawson? Let's explore.
As we know, the MVP almost always goes to a player on a playoff (or at least contending) team -- unless someone blows everyone else out of the water with his stats. Dawson's league-leading home run and RBI totals were impressive, but a quick look at a few other MVP stats indicate that his season was pedestrian in comparison. Among the 18 hitters who received MVP votes that year, Dawson ranked 12th in batting average (.287), 11th in runs scored (90), sixth in slugging percentage (.568) and 18th in on-base percentage (.328). Yes, that's 18th of 18!
And this cuts to the core of the anti-Hawk Hall argument: The guy simply made a lot of outs. In fact, Dawson finished sixth in the league in outs made in 1987. His .323 career OBP is the lowest among Hall of Fame outfielders, and it's 20 percentage points lower than that of the next guy (Lou Brock).
But a .328 OBP in 1987 isn't the only reason Dawson didn't deserve his MVP. It turns out he wasn't even the best outfielder on a bad team. How about Braves center fielder Dale Murphy, whose OPS was 100 percentage points better than Dawson's (.997 to .896)? (He finished 11th in the MVP vote.) How about two outfielders within Dawson's division who played for 90-win teams? Mets right fielder Darryl Strawberry hit 39 homers, stole 36 bases and had more than 100 runs and RBIs while posting a .398 OBP. (He finished sixth.) Expos left fielder Tim Raines hit .330 with a .429 OBP, .529 slugging, 123 runs scored and 50 steals. (He finished seventh.) Other outfielders who received MVP votes and had a higher OPS than the Hawk that season were Eric Davis (.991), Tony Gwynn (.958) and Pedro Guerrero (.958). Now I'm not claiming that OPS is the be-all, end-all stat, but if you have the seventh-best OPS among outfielders in your league in a given season and you don't play center field or steal bases at an efficient clip, you probably shouldn't be the MVP. Voters in 1987 might not have been able to see that, but voters in 2009 should have.
I could go on and explain why Ozzie Smith and Mike Schmidt were also better MVP choices, but the bottom line is that any Hall of Fame voter from this past year who voted for the 1987 MVP, and there are many of them, should have been able to look back at the 1987 season and realize that Dawson was far from the best player in the NL that year. Not only did he not deserve the award, he also might not have been one of the 10 best choices.
Allow me to leave you with a Jerry Springer-style final thought. Wins above replacement is an all-encompassing metric that incorporates hitting, baserunning and defense. The Hawk's 2.7 WAR ranked 18th among the 18 position players who received votes for the NL MVP that year. And it's the third-lowest WAR for any MVP in history, higher than only that of Willie Stargell (2.3 in 1979) and Roger Peckinpaugh (2.4 in 1925).
Despite all this data regarding Dawson's 1987 season, you still might think he is a Hall of Famer. We can agree to disagree on that. However, when making the case for the Hawk, please don't bring his MVP award into the discussion. It just doesn't hold up.
Matt Meyers is an associate editor for ESPN Insider.
