Quote:
Originally Posted by Runscott
I have no idea how you made that leap of logic from what I posted.
|
No great leap on my part, I don't think.
You wrote that Dunn had some great years and hit a lot of homers yet his "overall performance" was not HOF-worthy. So the question is, what does the word "overall" mean. It either means (a) his overall career stats, in other words, the number of great years where he hit a lot of homers, or (b) his overall skillset (his game apart from homers and doubles and walks). Since I conceded in my original post that he had not had enough great seasons, it seemed that you had to be arguing that his overall skillset was not HOF-worthy, not that he hadn't had enough great years. In which case, you are saying that averaging 40 homers, 35 doubles, and 100 walks a year (Dunn during his prime) does not make you a Hall of Famer if the rest of your overall performance is unexceptional. Which is a perfectly legitimate point of view. Just not one that I share.