RealityChuck wrote: I don't see Dawson as that bad a choice -- his numbers fit snugly among HOF players, and he played on some pretty bad teams almost his entire career, which hurt him. The fact that Blyleven and Alomar didn't get in has nothing to do with whether Dawson was a good choice. You're following the same logical fallacy as the people who refuse to vote for someone in his first year of eligibility. No, i'm not. Alomar (i'll use him and ignore trying to compare pitching/hitting at the moment) was better than Dawson, which does have something to do with whether Dawson was a good choice, because everyone who voted for Dawson but not Alomar made the rather indefensible decision to vote for a clearly worse player ahead of someone that they deemed not to be a good choice. You can draw the "line" of how good someone had to be to get into the HOF wherever you'd like, but when you say that Dawson is above that line and Alomar below it you've made a bad choice.