This is part three in my hall of fame diary series.  I have already posted some diaries on:
Bert Blyleven
And Jack Morris

I still like to have some discussion, or at least opinions, on who might join Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn in the class of 2007.  The top vote getters from last year were:

Jim Rice,
Rich "Goose" Gossage,
Andre Dawson,
Lee Smith,
Jack Morris
Tommy John

And in case you'd like the reference, the rest of the ballot is here: Harold Baines, Albert Belle, Dante Bichette, Bobby Bonilla, Scott Brosius, Jay Buhner, Ken Caminiti, Jose Canseco., Dave Concepcion, Eric Davis, Tony Fernandez, Steve Garvey, Orel Hershiser, Wally Joyner, Don Mattingly, Mark McGwire, Dale Murphy, Paul O'Neill, Dave Parker, Bret Saberhagen, Alan Trammell, Devon White and Bobby Witt.  

After the January 9th, I'd like to discuss some of the Veteran's Committee nominees that have a St Louis connection: Ken Boyer, August Busch Jr, Curt Flood, Whitey Herzog, Jim Kaat, Marty Marion, and Joe Torre.  Voting results will be announced February 27th.






Today I thought it would be interesting to do something a bit different...  Below is a table that compares two potential HoFers.  They played similar positions over about the same years.  Three questions...

1)Based on these stats go you believe one is significantly more hall-worthy than the other?
2)If you'd need more information, what information would decide it for you?
3)Do you know who they are?
Scroll down to find out who they and to read more.

By the way, the image of Quetzalcoatl is supposed to be a bit of a hint.

If you have not figured it out yet, the player on the chart's left is Cobra- Dave Parker, The player on the chart's left is Hawk- Andre Dawson.  Quetzalcoatl, literally meaning Bird-Snake, is in the middle- get it?

[Awkward pause]

Okay, maybe that was lame.

Anyway, the whole point of this is that in doing this bit of research I was really surprised on how similar these two guys were statistically and how that wasn't reflected in last year's voting when Dawson got 61% and Parker got 14%.  Don't get me wrong, I know there are some big differences. Dawson was an eight time gold-glover who played center for seven years before his knees gave out and he moved to right.  Dawson also stole 314 bases and hit 438 home runs.  He had a rare combination of power and speed.

However, Parker, at least early on, was no slouch in the field as he did win gold gloves three times.  Also, while he hit "only" 334 home runs, he posted a higher OBP and he walked nearly 100 times more than Dawson.  Parker also started three years earlier and finished five years earlier, making him less part of the steroid era.  It really makes me wonder how strongly Dave Parker's drug problems in the early 1980s have affected his chances.  Could you imagine his career with three more good seasons at his peak?  I'm sure Parker would have been a first ballot HoFer much like Dave Winfeild.   But then its not just about the lost productivity of those seasons.  After signing a "big" $5M/5year in 1979,  Parker's average and power fell off; he was obviously overweight and constantly injured.  He then reacted to complaints about his performance by criticizing the fans.  My old copy of Total Baseball called him "the most unpopular player to ever to wear a Pirates uniform."  I don't know if his vote totals are a bit of retribution for his behavior, but I wouldn't doubt it.  And I think such a precedent may not bode well for Albert Belle.

Now let's look at these two as well as another perennial HoF candidate.

Jim Rice's career line is:
2089 games, 2452 hits, 382 home runs, 670 walks, 1541 RBI, .298BA, .352OBP, .502SLG.
He was an eight time all-star, two time silver slugger and finished 1,3,3,4,4,5,13,19 for the MVP.
His best seasons (1977-1979) were:
.315/.370/.600
.320/.376/.593
.321/.385/.596

I know that is a bit better than either Dawson or Parker, but lets face it, he did benefit a lot from playing in Fenway.  According to this column at ESPN, he performed 17% better at home than on the road while a typical split is about 5%.  His career home/road splits were .374/.330 OBP, .546/.459 SLG, and .920/.789 OBP.  If you aren't convinced that these three players are that similar, take a look at BR's Dave Parker page.  #5 for similarity is Dawson; #7 is Rice.  But honestly, that's largely an excuse.  Given that their career stats are relatively close, it just makes the analysis easier.

The Career Leader Boards:
Obviously these guys are not anywhere close to the career leader boards for batting average or on base percentage, but Rice is number 89 for slugging at .502.  That doesn't sound so hot today, but when he retired, a .500 slugging average, along with 2000 hits, was a pretty sure ticket to Cooperstown.  In fact, there was only one eligible non-HoFer that met that criteria: Indian Bob Johnson at .506/ 2051.  Also consider that back then Rice was sandwiched between Tris Speaker and Joe Medwick at number 43 all-time.  Now, if you didn't believe the 1990-2005 was the greatest hitters' era ever, consider this: 46 of the 89 top sluggers in MLB history have played almost entirely after Rice's retirement!   In fact outside of the steroids era players, the only eligible non-HoFers with higher than a .500 slugging average are either on the Veteran's ballot: Dick Allen(.534) or are perennial Veterans' Committee nominees: Brownie great, Ken Williams (.531); Hal Trosky(.522), Wally Berger(.522), and Jeff Heath(.509) and Indian Bob.

As for Dawson's and Parker's slugging averages, I don't know exactly where they ranked when they retired.--  I only know Rice's because I have a few baseball reference books from the time.--  However, I can guess that not counting more contemporary players, Dawson was, at retirement, around #85, right next to Yogi Berra.  It's still solid territory, but populated mostly by great-but-not-HoF players like: George Foster and Jack Fournier.  Parker's slugging wouldn't have made the top 100 even discounting steroid era players.

Parker and Dawson both appear on the career leader boards for doubles.  Parker is 31st with 536 and Dawson is 42nd with 503.  Wow!  That is getting in to solid HoF territory for Parker.  Above him is Frank Robinson and below him is Ted Williams.  In fact, the only non-HoFers (or sure bets for the HoF) are Barry Bonds (#14, 587), Rafael Palmeiro (#15, 585), and Luis Gonzales (#21, 547).  Dawson is sandwiched between two guys that are future HoF 2nd basemen: Roberto Alomar (#41, 504) and Jeff Kent (#43, 501).   He is surrounded mostly by HoFers, but some good-not-great guys like Edgar Martinez (#36, 514), Mark Grace (#37, 511), John Olerud (#45, 500) and Rusty Staub (#46, 499).  On a side note, the biggest surprise of this leader board was Craig Biggio at #9 with 637 and he should finish his career at #5.

Before I looked at the home run leader boards I almost forgot how significant 400 home runs was.  Outside of the steroid era, everybody with over 400 home runs was in the hall, except for Dawson who is #35 on that list with 338, Dave Kingman (#34, 442) and Darrell Evans (#40, 414).  Jim Rice is in solid but unremarkable by today's standards #52 with 382.  Although when he retired he was #26.  The only non-HoFers with more home runs were Evans and Kingman.  Parker's 339 home runs puts him in good, not great territory, right behind a former Cardinal, Jack Clark (#70, 340) and with another former Cardinal, Tino Martinez (#71,339).

The games leaders surprised me.  Dawson is at #32 with 2627 and Parker is at #55 with 2466.  The only non-HoFers above Dawson are: Staub (#11, 2951), Bonds (#13, 2660), Palmeiro (#16, 2831), Baines (#17, #2830), Biggio (#25, 2709), Gregg Nettles (#27, 2700) and Evans (#28, 2687).  Parker is in solid territory here.  He in just behind Rod Carew (#53, 2469) and just ahead of near-HoFer Ted Simmons (#57, 2456).  By the way, would anyone have guessed Parker played more games than Tony Gwynn (#61, 2440)?  Jim Rice's 2089 games aren't near the top 100 anymore, but they would have put him close at retirement.

Dawson's 1591 RBIs are the most by any eligible non-HoFer, save Cal Ripken (#20, 1695) and Baines (#23, 1628); Dawson is #29 on that list.  Parker is #47 with 1493 and Rice is #52 with 1451.  If you go down as far as 60, the only other HoF-eligible player not inducted is Staub (#45, 1255).

Dawson's 314 stolen bases place him just outside the top 100 career leaders.  Rice's OPS+ was 128; Parker's was 121, Dawson's was 119; none make the top 100.

The Bill James' Keltner Test
I mentioned this test before, to describe Bert Blyleven's lack of dominance, and again so you can go through the mechanics yourself, the test is here.  Basically Dawson, Parker and Rice were dominant.  All were considered the best players on their team, in the league, if not in the game, for at least one year and probably for up to three or more years.   Of these three, Rice was probably the most dominant, but this was in part an effect of the park in which he played.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the entire "park effect" should be discounted, but it should be considered.  Still I believe he was the most dominant of the three at his peak.  Parker probably had the most potential... to bad he wasted it.  Given his defense, and ability to play center, Dawson was probably the best all-around player.  However, all of them, more than any other outfielders other than perhaps Winfield or Gwynn, were considered consistently the most dominant in their leagues from 1975-1990  

Rice and Parker had the biggest roles in their Team's championships, 1975 Red Sox and 1979 Pirates respectively, but neither had their best season (or MVP) in a championship year.   Dawson had a relatively mediocre season for the 1989 Cubs and his MVP was for the last place 1987 Cubs

All of them were very good, but not great past their prime.  Obviously Dawson and Parker had more longevity than Rice, and this is reflected in their stats: games played and hits more noticeably, but also in Rice's higher slugging average.   Two of them, Dawson and Rice, were considered to be good teammates and good for the game.  As mentioned before, Parker's antics in the early 80s hurt his HoF chances.

Conclusions
Clearly all three's career totals in when considered with their rate stats puts them near if not within the Hall of Fame range.  However as I went through this exercise, I was surprised to learn not only how similar these three guys were,  but also how the offensive boom of the 1990s and 2000 has affected the decision on all of them.  It's very difficult, especially with Dawson, to judge their performance, when they are compared to hitters over the past 15 years.  (Again, for reference, nearly half of the top 100 sluggers and half of the top 50 home run hitters are from the most recent of eras.)   I think because of that so many voters have chosen to err on the side of caution.

In the end, I have to wonder if not these guys, which other outfielders should represent the late 70s and 80s?  Winfield and Gwynn are in but I don't think those two enough representation for the era.

So what is everyone's opinion?  Would you vote for Andre Dawson, Dave Parker or Jim Rice?