Somebody run the numbers on Dave Parker, Dale Murphy, and Andre Dawson. Three NL outfielders, overlapped--I think Parker came first, then Murphy, then Dawson--all three "plus" as defensive outfielders. My guess is that Murphy's total numbers aren't going to be any better than Parker's and probably not as good as Dawson's. If Murphy gets in, do Parker and Dawson? That, in turn, would lower the bar for others. Al Oliver, Tony Oliva, as veterans? Where do you draw the line?
Dawson had 438 home runs, 1591 RBIs and a lifetime BA of .279. He also had 1 MVP, 1 RoY, 8 gold gloves, and 4 Silver Slugger awards.
Very comparable to Murph, obviously. My question is, why would Dawson getting in (which I have no problem with) "lower the bar" for others? Exactly what criteria do you use? Nobody under 400 HRs? 1300 RBIs? A .300 average?
I think using just raw numbers is overrated. Hell, Don Freaking Sutton is in the HoF. Now, I like Don, and I know he won 300 games. But he also played for 23 YEARS!! He had exactly one 20-win season and only topped 15 wins once in his final 12 years.
Dave Parker (1973-91): 2466 G, 339 HR, 1493 RBI, .290 AVG, .810 OPS, 154 SB/58 SB%
Dale Murphy (1976-93): 2180 G, 398 HR, 1266 RBI, .265 AVG, .815 OPS, 161 SB/70 SB%
Andre Dawson (1976-96): 2627 G, 438 HR, 1591 RBI, .279 AVG, .806 OPS, 314 SB/74 SB%
I saw all three of these guys play a lot of games. I would say Dawson is the best of the three, but even there I'm not sure he belongs in the Hall.
Here are the quick run downs:
Dawson
BA 279
SLG 482
OBP 323
OPS 806
RBI 1591
Runs 1373
HR 438
FPCT 983
Parker
BA 290
SLG 471
OBP 339
OPS 810
RBI 1493
Runs 1272
HR 339
FPCT 966
Murphy
BA 265
SLG 469
OBP 346
OPS 815
RBI 1266
Runs 1197
HR 398
FPCT 982
Dawson's numbers are more impressive than I would have thought. Murphy is a bit better than Parker, but a raw look at the numbers would put Dawson in the lead. Murphy's leadership still has to be considered, but the fact that he wasn't on a winner still sits him in the "almost great" category.