RockPride Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 I think that Andre Dawson should be in.... 2,774 hits, 438 HR, .279 average His average 162 game season.. .279, 27 hr, 98 rbi.....played for 21 years.....get him in, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockPride Posted August 9, 2007 Author Share Posted August 9, 2007 plus 157 assists from the outfield.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cshs81 Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 I may have mentioned this before - I don't recall: If Biggio is going in, Sweet Lou Whitaker should be in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKMustangFan Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Dawson, Jim Rice, Blyleven(sp?)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRIKE3 Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 I've never understood, why Dawson wasn't it. If I recall correctly, he was MVP on a last place team. His offensive stats while impressive, was not his strongest argument. His arm, kept many runners from advancing the extra base and scoring. Dawson and Jim Rice, should be in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockPride Posted August 9, 2007 Author Share Posted August 9, 2007 Jim Rice: 2,452 hits, 382 hr, .298 avg average season.... .298, 190 hits, 30 hr, 113 rbi . . . 16 seasons....very impressive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRIKE3 Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 How about Rice's teammate, Fred Lynn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Schue Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 It's a shame that the writers have punished these guys for not being media-friendly. If they're going to do that to two players who I think were among the top OFs for their era, then fair's fair, they should do it to Bonds, should've done it to Steve Carlton, and a few others. If Rice and Dawson played today, they'd be in the 550-600 range for HRs, given how crummy the pitching is today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cshs81 Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 . If Rice and Dawson played today, they'd be in the 550-600 range for HRs, given how crummy the pitching is today. We are in complete agreement on the point you're making regarding comparative stats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Schue Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 How about Rice's teammate, Fred Lynn. IMO, no. Liked to watch him play, but with only three seasons where his #s really knock you over (75, 79, 80), and the rest of his time relatively pedestrian, I can't really make the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRIKE3 Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 It's a shame that the writers have punished these guys for not being media-friendly. If they're going to do that to two players who I think were among the top OFs for their era, then fair's fair, they should do it to Bonds, should've done it to Steve Carlton, and a few others. If Rice and Dawson played today, they'd be in the 550-600 range for HRs, given how crummy the pitching is today.Don't mean to get off topic but is this an answer, for some exorbitant HR totals over the last 6-8 years. How many years, did Lynn play, to get back on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Schue Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Don't mean to get off topic but is this an answer, for some exorbitant HR totals over the last 6-8 years. I'm willing to go back the last 15 years; since the Rockies/D-Backs/Marlins/D-Rays came into the league and watered down the pitching. You could almost make a case to go back to '77 when Toronto and Seattle came in, but I don't really think that hurt the overall pitching to the point that it inflated the numbers. An examination of the leaderboards in the individual stats seem to bear this out. And performance enhancers have only compounded the problem, IMO. How many years, did Lynn play, to get back on topic. 17 years total Fred Lynn He was an excellent defensive player, however, so he gets points in that column, but not enough to get him in on my ballot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockPride Posted August 9, 2007 Author Share Posted August 9, 2007 Fred Lynn: 1,960 hits, 306 hr, .283 avg average season: .283, 161, 25 hr, 91 rbi...17 seasons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cshs81 Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 I'm willing to go back the last 15 years; since the Rockies/D-Backs/Marlins/D-Rays came into the league and watered down the pitching. You could almost make a case to go back to '77 when Toronto and Seattle came in, but I don't really think that hurt the overall pitching to the point that it inflated the numbers. An examination of the leaderboards in the individual stats seem to bear this out. And performance enhancers have only compounded the problem, IMO. . The stat geeks have determined that all things being equal over the history of baseball that Lynn has the equivalent of 400 HRs. And to back up your vote for the Hawk, his eqiuvalent number is 641. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockPride Posted August 9, 2007 Author Share Posted August 9, 2007 BTW, Fred Lynn finished 4th in the MVP voting in 1979 with these numbers: .333, 39 hr, 122 rbi....he finished behind this: Don Baylor - .296, 36 hr, 139 rbi, AND 22 SB Ken Singleton - .295, 35 hr, 111 rbi George Brett - .329, 23 hr, 107 rbi Very interesting that he finished 4th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts