Comments on: The Envelope, Please http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2010/01/06/the-envelope-please-3/ Baseball Blog by Alex Belth about the Yankees Thu, 09 Sep 2010 01:04:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Hugh Mulcahy http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2010/01/06/the-envelope-please-3/comment-page-2/#comment-283344 Hugh Mulcahy Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:48:48 +0000 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=27799#comment-283344 [59] I won't argue that point. Raines was on base all the time and was a nightmare on the basepaths. It's amazing to me the quality of ballplayers that the Montreal franchise had over the space of a couple decades, yet, they never made a noise in the post-season. [59] I won’t argue that point. Raines was on base all the time and was a nightmare on the basepaths. It’s amazing to me the quality of ballplayers that the Montreal franchise had over the space of a couple decades, yet, they never made a noise in the post-season.

]]> By: williamnyy23 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2010/01/06/the-envelope-please-3/comment-page-2/#comment-283343 williamnyy23 Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:42:52 +0000 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=27799#comment-283343 [58] Dawson definitely had a very good 1987, but it really wasn't remarkable by any standard with the exception of the number of HRs. I also watched a lot of Dawson in the 1980s, and always thought of him as a good player, but never among the game's elite. Tim Raines in the middle 1980s, however, did standout as such. I can understand liking Dawson as a player, and don't think he is an awful selection, but it is very hard to argue that he was a better player than Raines. [58] Dawson definitely had a very good 1987, but it really wasn’t remarkable by any standard with the exception of the number of HRs. I also watched a lot of Dawson in the 1980s, and always thought of him as a good player, but never among the game’s elite. Tim Raines in the middle 1980s, however, did standout as such.

I can understand liking Dawson as a player, and don’t think he is an awful selection, but it is very hard to argue that he was a better player than Raines.

]]> By: Hugh Mulcahy http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2010/01/06/the-envelope-please-3/comment-page-2/#comment-283342 Hugh Mulcahy Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:32:43 +0000 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=27799#comment-283342 [53, et. seq.] Absolutely subjective, hyperbolic, seat of hte pants reaction to the notion that Dawson was not an elite player. Unabashedly unobjective. Just thought he needed a little love. Not a Mike Schmidt historic great but, a contemporary elite player. 353 total bases in the 1980s was a monster year. Who else did that in the era? Don Mattingly? Kirby Puckett, maybe? I can't think of another NLer who came close in that decade. - looked it up and the Cobra did it. Maybe a borderline HOFer at the end of the day, but, if you watched him for his first ten years in the league, you expected him to be in the Hall when it was all over. As for Raines, I'm not comparing career statistics in any way when I say Dawson was better. I may be underselling Raines, who was a leadoff hitter par excellence. My view of his 1987 season isn't based on a comparison of historic numbers (quite obviously). It is based on watching that season unfold where Dawson seemed able to hit hte ball out of the park nearly at will. It was all he did, all year, and he never had another like it. To see him do that after spending 8-9 seasons as more of an all-around ball player - good at everything but not the best at anything - was startling. [53, et. seq.] Absolutely subjective, hyperbolic, seat of hte pants reaction to the notion that Dawson was not an elite player. Unabashedly unobjective. Just thought he needed a little love.

Not a Mike Schmidt historic great but, a contemporary elite player. 353 total bases in the 1980s was a monster year. Who else did that in the era? Don Mattingly? Kirby Puckett, maybe? I can’t think of another NLer who came close in that decade. – looked it up and the Cobra did it.

Maybe a borderline HOFer at the end of the day, but, if you watched him for his first ten years in the league, you expected him to be in the Hall when it was all over. As for Raines, I’m not comparing career statistics in any way when I say Dawson was better. I may be underselling Raines, who was a leadoff hitter par excellence. My view of his 1987 season isn’t based on a comparison of historic numbers (quite obviously). It is based on watching that season unfold where Dawson seemed able to hit hte ball out of the park nearly at will. It was all he did, all year, and he never had another like it. To see him do that after spending 8-9 seasons as more of an all-around ball player – good at everything but not the best at anything – was startling.

]]> By: williamnyy23 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2010/01/06/the-envelope-please-3/comment-page-2/#comment-283321 williamnyy23 Thu, 07 Jan 2010 14:11:03 +0000 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=27799#comment-283321 Top Non-Bonds OPS+ (chosen for its ease) since 1950 (min of 662 PAs, chosen to match Dawson's 1987 season): 1998 Mark McGwire - 216 2001 Sammy Sosa - 203 1961Norm Cash - 201 2001 Jason Giambi - 198 1966 Frank Robinson - 198 1967 Carl Yastrzemski - 193 1996 Gary Sheffield - 189 1969 Reggie Jackson - 189 2009 Albert Pujols - 188 2003 Albert Pujols - 187 Top Non-Bonds OPS+ (chosen for its ease) since 1950 (min of 662 PAs, chosen to match Dawson’s 1987 season):

1998 Mark McGwire – 216
2001 Sammy Sosa – 203
1961Norm Cash – 201
2001 Jason Giambi – 198
1966 Frank Robinson – 198
1967 Carl Yastrzemski – 193
1996 Gary Sheffield – 189
1969 Reggie Jackson – 189
2009 Albert Pujols – 188
2003 Albert Pujols – 187

]]> By: williamnyy23 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2010/01/06/the-envelope-please-3/comment-page-2/#comment-283320 williamnyy23 Thu, 07 Jan 2010 14:03:55 +0000 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=27799#comment-283320 [52] [54] To further illustrate my point about Dawson's 1987 season, since 1950, 553 players with at least 662 PAs (Dawson's 1987 total) had an OPS+ higher than the Hawk's 130. [52] [54] To further illustrate my point about Dawson’s 1987 season, since 1950, 553 players with at least 662 PAs (Dawson’s 1987 total) had an OPS+ higher than the Hawk’s 130.

]]> By: monkeypants http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2010/01/06/the-envelope-please-3/comment-page-2/#comment-283319 monkeypants Thu, 07 Jan 2010 13:59:42 +0000 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=27799#comment-283319 [52] <i>ANd, his first year with the Cubs stands up against any year by any NLer not named Barry Bonds in the second half of the 20th Century. He was a one-man force on a last place team. Hit 49 homers and knocked in 137 but, somehow, only managed to cross the plate 90 times.</i> Dawson was arguably not even the best player in the league that year (1987), despite what the MVP voters said. Tony Gwynn's year was better (.370/.447/.511/.958/158 OPS+), and look what Jack Clark did (though only played about 130 games). As for best seasons by any NLer not Bonds, it is surprising that a Phils Phan such as yourself would overlook several monster seasons by Mike Schmidt (how about 1980?). [52] ANd, his first year with the Cubs stands up against any year by any NLer not named Barry Bonds in the second half of the 20th Century. He was a one-man force on a last place team. Hit 49 homers and knocked in 137 but, somehow, only managed to cross the plate 90 times.

Dawson was arguably not even the best player in the league that year (1987), despite what the MVP voters said. Tony Gwynn’s year was better (.370/.447/.511/.958/158 OPS+), and look what Jack Clark did (though only played about 130 games).

As for best seasons by any NLer not Bonds, it is surprising that a Phils Phan such as yourself would overlook several monster seasons by Mike Schmidt (how about 1980?).

]]> By: williamnyy23 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2010/01/06/the-envelope-please-3/comment-page-2/#comment-283318 williamnyy23 Thu, 07 Jan 2010 13:56:57 +0000 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=27799#comment-283318 [52] Any evidence to support your assertion that Dawson was hands down better than Raines? In a similar number of PAs, Raines had a higher OPS+ (with a significantly higher OBP) and stole 500 more bases at a much better rate. Using more advanced metrics, Raines also has Dawson beat across the board (in some cases handily): wOBA: .374 to 352. EqA: .306 to .285 RARP: 708 to 527 JAWS: 66.6 to 49.9 Andre Dawson is a borderline candidate who probably falls a little short, but by no means disgraces the Hall of Fame. Tim Raines is clearly above the average standard for a HoF outfielder. Also, as for your assertion that Dawson's 1987 season was historic, well, that couldn't be further from the truth. His OPS+ that season was 130. For perspective, 8 Yankees were about as good or better than that level last year alone. Dawson's 1987 is light years from being a historic season (in fact, Raines own 1987 was better). And, by the way, the reason Dawson only "managed to score 90 times" is because he didn'y get on base alot, as evidenced by his .328 OBP. I am sorry, but your claims are way off base, although I would gladly listen to your argument if you could back it up with something other than your own subjective opinion. [52] Any evidence to support your assertion that Dawson was hands down better than Raines? In a similar number of PAs, Raines had a higher OPS+ (with a significantly higher OBP) and stole 500 more bases at a much better rate. Using more advanced metrics, Raines also has Dawson beat across the board (in some cases handily):

wOBA: .374 to 352.
EqA: .306 to .285
RARP: 708 to 527
JAWS: 66.6 to 49.9

Andre Dawson is a borderline candidate who probably falls a little short, but by no means disgraces the Hall of Fame. Tim Raines is clearly above the average standard for a HoF outfielder.

Also, as for your assertion that Dawson’s 1987 season was historic, well, that couldn’t be further from the truth. His OPS+ that season was 130. For perspective, 8 Yankees were about as good or better than that level last year alone. Dawson’s 1987 is light years from being a historic season (in fact, Raines own 1987 was better). And, by the way, the reason Dawson only “managed to score 90 times” is because he didn’y get on base alot, as evidenced by his .328 OBP.

I am sorry, but your claims are way off base, although I would gladly listen to your argument if you could back it up with something other than your own subjective opinion.

]]> By: monkeypants http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2010/01/06/the-envelope-please-3/comment-page-2/#comment-283317 monkeypants Thu, 07 Jan 2010 13:49:03 +0000 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=27799#comment-283317 [52] <i>but, he was hands down a better player than Tim Raines. </i> No, he really wasn't. Compare: Name, Offensive win % (rank all time), RC (rank all time), BA/OBP/SLG/OPS/OPS+, SB-CS Raines, .6648 (157), 1636 (53), .294/.385/.425/.810/123, 808-146 Dawson, .5944 (463), 1518 (76), .279/.323/.482/.806/.119, 314-109 Raines gets the better of it across the board, except for slugging % (and we all know that SLG is less important than OBP). And we haven't even talked about Runs Scored. Whatever Dawson's HOF merits, he was, simply, not as good a player as Raines. Now, maybe if he didn't break down with injuries....But that's another story. [52] but, he was hands down a better player than Tim Raines.

No, he really wasn’t.

Compare:

Name, Offensive win % (rank all time), RC (rank all time), BA/OBP/SLG/OPS/OPS+, SB-CS

Raines, .6648 (157), 1636 (53), .294/.385/.425/.810/123, 808-146
Dawson, .5944 (463), 1518 (76), .279/.323/.482/.806/.119, 314-109

Raines gets the better of it across the board, except for slugging % (and we all know that SLG is less important than OBP). And we haven’t even talked about Runs Scored.

Whatever Dawson’s HOF merits, he was, simply, not as good a player as Raines. Now, maybe if he didn’t break down with injuries….But that’s another story.

]]> By: Hugh Mulcahy http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2010/01/06/the-envelope-please-3/comment-page-2/#comment-283316 Hugh Mulcahy Thu, 07 Jan 2010 13:20:07 +0000 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=27799#comment-283316 Is there an AL bias in the preferences on this board? Is Tim Raines considered head and shoulders better than Andre Dawson because he played a couple years in New York? I'm not going to denigrate the careers of Alomar or Blyleven or any of hte other candidates. All very good players. But, Dawson was an excellent player. You can quibble over his HOF credentials but, he was hands down a better player than Tim Raines. I watched both play for many years in teh NL East and I think Raines was a terrific player. He was no Hawk. He played a long time despite knees that betrayed him in the prime of his career. An elite player in the NL at a time when the NL was predominant in terms of talent level in the way the AL has been for the last decade or two. He hit for power, stole bases by the basketful and played a phenomenal right field. When he was in Montreal with Cromartie and Raines and Valentine (Ellis, of course), he more than held his own among some pretty damn good fielders. Maybe he doesn't have 3000 hits, or 500 HRs. But, he does have 2750 hits and 425+ HR and 300+ SB despite playing half-crippled in his 30s. ANd, his first year with the Cubs stands up against any year by any NLer not named Barry Bonds in the second half of the 20th Century. He was a one-man force on a last place team. Hit 49 homers and knocked in 137 but, somehow, only managed to cross the plate 90 times. It may be an outlier in terms of his average numbers but, no player preferred on this thread with teh possible exception of Albert Belle had a year nearly as dominant as Dawson's peak. Is there an AL bias in the preferences on this board? Is Tim Raines considered head and shoulders better than Andre Dawson because he played a couple years in New York? I’m not going to denigrate the careers of Alomar or Blyleven or any of hte other candidates. All very good players. But, Dawson was an excellent player. You can quibble over his HOF credentials but, he was hands down a better player than Tim Raines. I watched both play for many years in teh NL East and I think Raines was a terrific player. He was no Hawk. He played a long time despite knees that betrayed him in the prime of his career. An elite player in the NL at a time when the NL was predominant in terms of talent level in the way the AL has been for the last decade or two. He hit for power, stole bases by the basketful and played a phenomenal right field. When he was in Montreal with Cromartie and Raines and Valentine (Ellis, of course), he more than held his own among some pretty damn good fielders. Maybe he doesn’t have 3000 hits, or 500 HRs. But, he does have 2750 hits and 425+ HR and 300+ SB despite playing half-crippled in his 30s. ANd, his first year with the Cubs stands up against any year by any NLer not named Barry Bonds in the second half of the 20th Century. He was a one-man force on a last place team. Hit 49 homers and knocked in 137 but, somehow, only managed to cross the plate 90 times. It may be an outlier in terms of his average numbers but, no player preferred on this thread with teh possible exception of Albert Belle had a year nearly as dominant as Dawson’s peak.

]]> By: williamnyy23 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2010/01/06/the-envelope-please-3/comment-page-2/#comment-283315 williamnyy23 Thu, 07 Jan 2010 11:00:29 +0000 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=27799#comment-283315 [50] I meant to say "Alomar has an edge in OPS+", but Biggio's longer career more than made up for that. Thanks. [50] I meant to say “Alomar has an edge in OPS+”, but Biggio’s longer career more than made up for that. Thanks.

]]>