Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Dawson or Rice?
When people talk about Hall of Fame snubs every year I always scream that they should be talking more about Andre Dawson not getting in than Jim Rice. I think Dawson was the better player. Rice was the best hitter but that's about it. Here's what I mean...
Andre Dawson: .279; 1373 runs; 2774 hits, 438 HR, 1591 RBI...here's the big one...314 stolen bases, including 7 years with more than 20 and 13 with more than 10. 1 MVP, 1 Rookie of the Year, twice second in MVP voting...here's the other big one...EIGHT gold gloves in nine years.
Jim Rice: .298, 1249 runs, 2452 hits, 1451 RBI; 382 HR, ONLY 58 stolen bases, including a season-high of 10. Like Dawson, Rice was an 8-time all-star and a one-time MVP and Rookie of the Year. He finished third in MVP voting twice.
Now, Dawson played five more seasons than Rice so obviously his offensive numbers appear better. I concede that Rice was the better hitter; however there also is somethign to say about Dawson being able to play 21 years and still being productive in his 19th while Rice ceased being productive after his 15th season. Basically, I'd give Rice an edge in terms of shear offense and run producing. However, it's not by a lot and Dawson demolishes him in speed and defense. Dawson was a true five-tool player while Rice was basically just a great slugger and hitter.
The Hall of Fame is for the best PLAYERS of all-time, not just the best hitters and Dawson was the better and more complete player.
That's my opinion anyway...
|
