Okay. I’m just going to go about my business, and hopefully you’ll hang around and tell me how I’m doing and why I’m doing it.

But, as I already pointed out, Dawson was below average in OBP among his era, not when compared to future eras.

Yes, I saw that. And while drawing walks is a hugely underrated aspect of the game, historically speaking, it’s still not the only part. Dawson had a great deal of power for his era, was regarded as a top-quality defender, and was at least a neutral “character guy” in the clubhouse (not bringing this up as a HOF prerequisite per se, just as a potential reason to break a tie). I see him as the best CF in the NL in the early to mid 80s, which puts him in the HOF for me. No, not in the mythical inner circle, but definitely on the level of a Richie Ashburn (actually maybe a couple notches above him).

The other issue with rate stats: Dawson was really, really bad from 1993 on but his teams kept using him. Is that his fault, or more to the point does that make his prime less good? Everybody except JR Richard goes through a decline phase, but not a lot of players hang around for 3+ years as a straight-up below average player because of their rep. That’s certainly not an argument for the Hawk but it’s not one against either.

They’re often terrible at contextualizing a player’s accomplishments across different eras.

But, as I already pointed out, Dawson was below average in OBP among his era, not when compared to future eras.

Being below average in OBP should not be fatal to one’s chances, but it is a heck of a hurdle to overcome. In my view, Dawson doesn’t quite overcome it.

Also, w/r/t “look controversial” etc: don’t.

I suspect that Derek doesn’t really think that either and that he’s engaging in a wee bit of hyperbole to look controversial and so on. This was, like, required from stat guys 20 years ago because there was no other way they could get themselves heard. However, now that statheadosity is beginning to be accepted around the MLB and even agents of the sports press, this tactic doesn’t work nearly as well IMO. Before, you had to yell to get people to listen to you. Now, you have to watch your yelling lest people start to ignore you.

Actually, the primary reason I don’t like the 100% kvetching is because there is this sense that there is an “inner” Hall of Fame composed of the people who really, really deserve it, and the level to which they really deserve it is based on how close to 100% of the vote they got.
I’m sorry, but no. There is only one Hall of Fame, and there is no inner or outer circle. If you think there should be one, you should make one or get the Baseball HOF to create one.

No, this has nothing to do with some concept of an “inner hall” or some other arbitrary distinction we’re making. It has to do with these guys — the hall voters — being able to do their jobs, and not making political statements or making up some other random set of criteria to go by — like “nobody gets 100%” or “X didn’t get 100%, so Y doesn’t either” or “I will never vote for anybody who played in the ’steroid era’ as arbitrarily defined by me.” If anyone is creating an arbitrary “inner hall” it’s them, not us. Can anyone really offer a good reason to have not voted for Henderson? Evan came the closest, and even that seems a bit weak (it’s not like there aren’t other first-time guys you could leave off). So instead we have to assume some of these voters are just chasing their own agenda that departs from the criteria established by the HOF, or they just aren’t taking it seriously, or they’re too old and befuddled to actually do their jobs. Malfeasance, apathy, or incompetence — take your pick — any one of which should be grounds to yank their voting credentials.

Of course, if baseball had done that with Rose and McGwire when they retired, and they would have been among the few on that pinnacle, they would be looking out from the Hall when the news hit.